the role of sex, gender role, and extraversion

Edith Cowan University Edith Cowan University

Research Online Research Online

Theses : Honours Theses

2008

The role of sex, gender role, and extraversion-introversion in The role of sex, gender role, and extraversion-introversion in

explaining the experience, expression and control of anger explaining the experience, expression and control of anger

James Oliver Edith Cowan University

Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons

Part of the Cognitive Psychology Commons, and the Personality and Social Contexts Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Oliver, J. (2008). The role of sex, gender role, and extraversion-introversion in explaining the experience, expression and control of anger. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons/1151

This Thesis is posted at Research Online. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons/1151

https://ro.ecu.edu.au/

https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons

https://ro.ecu.edu.au/thesescoll

https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons?utm_source=ro.ecu.edu.au%2Ftheses_hons%2F1151&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/408?utm_source=ro.ecu.edu.au%2Ftheses_hons%2F1151&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/413?utm_source=ro.ecu.edu.au%2Ftheses_hons%2F1151&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons/1151

Edith Cowan University

Copyright Warning

You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose

of your own research or study.

The University does not authorize you to copy, communicate or

otherwise make available electronically to any other person any

copyright material contained on this site.

You are reminded of the following:

Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright.

A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a

copyright infringement. Where the reproduction of such material is

done without attribution of authorship, with false attribution of

authorship or the authorship is treated in a derogatory manner,

this may be a breach of the author’s moral rights contained in Part

IX of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

Courts have the power to impose a wide range of civil and criminal

sanctions for infringement of copyright, infringement of moral

rights and other offences under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

Higher penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded,

for offences and infringements involving the conversion of material

into digital or electronic form.

Anger Experience and Expression

The Role of Sex, Gender Role, and Extraversion-Introversion

in explaining the Experience, Expression and Control of Anger

James Oliver

A r~port submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the A ward of Bachelor of

Arts (Psychology) Honours, Faculty of Computing, Health and Science,

Edith Cowan University.

Submitted (May, 2008)

I declare that this written assignment is my

own work and does not include:

(i) material from published sources

used without proper acknowledgement; or

(ii) material copied from the work of

other students.

Signature:

Date: // ~ t!'

USE OF THESIS

The Use of Thesis statement is not included in this version of the thesis.

Anger Experience and Expression m

The role of Sex, Gender Role, and Extraversion-Introversion


Abstract Anger is a frequently experienced emotion that has been shown to influence perceptions, beliefs, ideas, reasoning, and ultimately choices and actions. It has the potential to become a serious problem if it reaches dysfunctional levels. This study examines the role of biological sex, gender role, and extraversion-introversion in the expression, experience and control of anger. A sample of 110 persons drawn from the Australian community were administered the Staxi-2, EPQ-R and the BSRI. Results showed that extraversionintroversion accounted for most variance associated with anger expression, while gender role accounted for most variance associated with anger control. Biological sex was not significant in accounting for anger variance. This research has highlighted factors that correlate with different aspects of anger, and provides for a better understanding of anger as both an emotional and socially constructed force. The results are consistent with the view that biological factors probably best explain the expression of anger, but that socially constructed factors such as gender role may best explain the control of anger. Sustained research in this area will provide for improved understanding of how biological and social determinants interact in the expression and control of anger.

Anger Experience and Expression IV

COPYRIGHT AND ACCESS DECLARATION

I certify that this thesis does not, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

Signed.

Date .......

incorporate without acknowledgement any material previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any institution of higher education;

contain any material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text; or

contain any defamatory material.

Anger Experience and Expression v

Acknowledgements

The author thanks his supervisor Dr Ken Robinson, Edith Cowan University, for his

guidance, time and commitment as the material in this literature and research report was

written and reviewed for submission. The assistance of Dr Ricks Allan, Edith Cowan

University, who assisted in acquiring the necessary test instruments and the support

' provided by Ms Carole Gambsy, Administrative Officer, Edith Cowan University was also

appreciated. A very special thankyou to my wife, family and good friends for their

continual encouragement and support. I also greatly appreciate and acknowledge the

participants of this study for taking time to complete the questionnaires.

Anger Experience and Expression vi

Table of Contents

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 1

Abstract ................................................................................................................ 2

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3

Anger Affect and Regulation ................................................................................ 8

Anger: A Positive, Negative and Functional Force ............................................ 10

The Biological Basis of Anger ............................................................................ 15

Social Explanation of Anger Experience and Expression .................................. 17

Biological Explanation of Anger Experience and Expression ........................... 22

Summary of Social and Biological Explanations of Anger ............................... 25

Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 26

References ........................................................................................................... 29

Appendix A Guidelines for Contributions by Authors ....................................... 36

PROJECT REPORT .................................................................................................. 42

Abstract ............................................................................................................. 43

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 44

Method .............................................................................................................. 52

Results ............................................................................................................... 55

Discussion ......................................................................................................... 60

References ......................................................................................................... 68

Appendix B Demographic Information and Test Instruments .......................... 7 4

Appendix C SPSS Output ................................................................................. 79

Appendix D Guidelines for Contributions by Authors ..................................... 92

Anger Experience and Expression 1

Running head: ANGER EXPERIENCE AND EXPRESSION

(Literature Review)

Sex, Gender Role, and Extraversion-Introversion

in the Experience and Expression of Anger

James Oliver



Sex, Gender Role, and Extraversion and Introversion in the Experience and Expression of Anger

Abstract

Anger has lost its negative perception and is now viewed as both a positive or negative force. Anger has been a neglected research area compared to other affective states, possibly since it is a complex construct or as a result of it being confused with aggression and hostility. This review argues that anger is now perceived as more of a biological force than a socially developed one, and that anger is better explained from a motivational perspective than hedonic valence. Biological predictors such as the personality dimension extraversionintroversion may better explain anger experience and expression than predictors such as sex and gender role. A number of future research possibilities exist. One is to explore in greater depth biological predictors of anger such as the personality dimension or extraversionintroversion. Another is to develop predictors that have levels consisting of sex, gender role and extraversion-introversion. Moreover, more research into anger as a positive force is required. Finally, William's (2006) integrative neuroscience model of "Significance" has potential as a clear framework to develop new methodologies for the exploration of anger and other affective states.

James Oliver

Dr Ken Robinson

March 2008


SEX, GENDER ROLE, AND EXTRA VERSION-INTROVERSION

IN THE EXPERIENCE AND EXPRESSION OF ANGER

Individual behaviour is a combination of biological, psychological and social

forces that are often accompanied by noticeable levels of emotion (Eagly & Wood, 2003).

These forces interact over the life course where each life event produces a

phenomenological experience that contributes towards the shaping of an individuals

behaviour and well being, creation of personality and personality signatures as well as

idiosyncratic person specific behaviours (Cozolino, 2006; Morf, 2006; Van Kleef & Co~te',

2007).

These biological, psychological and social forces are often intertwined with

emotions that also form and shape a significant part of the human experience (Baumeister,

Vohs, DeWall, & Zhang, 2007). Emotions are a frequent daily experiences for a person.

For example Myrtek, Zanda, and Aschenbrenner (200 1) monitored reported emotions of 50

female and 50 male university students every 20 minutes for a period of one day. They

reported that women felt an emotion about 40 percent of the time and men about 30 percent

of the time. Apart from the obvious limitations of a sample comprising of students and the

small period of time monitored, this study demonstrates that emotions reach a level of

arousal that can be recognized and that they form a large part of daily experience. Of the

emotions it has been shown that anger is a common experience and is second only to

happiness as the most experienced affective state (Averil, 1982; Myrtek et al., 2001;

Scherer, Wranik, Sangsue, Tran & Scherer 2004).


While emotions such as anger provide some of the most powerful positive and

negative affects a human can experience there is still much controversy over what emotions

and their purpose is (Baumeister et al., 2007; Bower & Forgas, 2000; Buchanan, 2007;

Scherer, 2000;). This controversy and the existence of multiple yet not incompatible

theories that attempt to explain the wide range of phenomena associated with emotions

contributes to the present limited understanding of emotions and leaves anger expression

and experience only partly explained (Bean, 2005; Davis, 2004; Del Vecchio & O'Leary,

f

2004; Robbins, 2000; Wranik, 2004).

The controversy in the area has raised many recurring questions (Bean, 2005;

Davis, 2004; Del Vecchio & O'Leary, 2004; Robbins, 2000; Wranik, 2004). These

recurring questions include whether emotions directly or indirectly influence behaviour,

whether they are dependent on cognition, or whether they are automatic affective responses

(Baumeister et al., 2007). William James (1884, 1890) developed a view that emotions are

a response to stimuli possessing intrinsic or reinforcing properties. James' theory has since

been encompassed in the theory of self-perception (Strout, Sokol, Laird, & Thompson,

2004), that proposes that emotional behaviour is the cause of emotion feelings, rather than

the reverse ("I flee, therefore I am afraid"). Empirical testing of self perception theory

shows that inducing people to adopt facial expressions of emotion and adopting slouched or

straight postures associated with positive or negative states leads to experiencing feelings

associated with emotions of such induced states (Laird & Strout, 2007).

The literature may be summarised as finding that regardless of whether a person is

of female or male sex, individuals are angered to similar degrees by similar stimuli and

experience, and express anger in similar ways (Newman, Fuqua, Gray, & Simpson, 2006).

Hyde (2005) has synthesised the findings of more than 46 meta-analyses, proposing a

gender similarities hypothesis that males and females are similar on most, but not all,


psychological variables. Hyde's hypothesis has appeal, and reflects the literature, but is not

new in that it replicates the findings of a watershed study in this area of over 2000 gender

difference studies conducted by Maccoby and Jacklin (1974). Therefore in over 34 years,

similarities and small differences have been the major findings in research seeking to

explain psychological sex differences.

The small differences found may be due to the heterogeneity accompanying broad

groupings such as females and males (Newman et al., 2006). It may be possible that these

gr~upings may not be appropriate to properly account for anger variance, and therefore

research must continue to search for better predictors that explain and help in the

understanding of anger variance (Newman et al., 2006).

Recently Milovchevich, Howell, Drew, and Day (2000) addressed anger expression

and experience and extended the research beyond sex to gender role. Their study built upon

the work of Kopper (1993) and Kopper and Epperson (1991, 1996). Together these studies

explored whether gender role provided a better predictor of the patterns of anger experience

and expression than gender with the combined findings suggesting that gender role was a

better predictor of anger than sex. These studies are briefly reviewed.

The Kopper and Epperson ( 1991) study examined the relationship of sex and gender

role identity using self reports of 453 college students. Univariate analyses revealed

consistent relationships between gender role identity and anger proneness, outward

expression of anger, modulation or control of anger expression, and suppression of anger

but not sex. The authors concluded that uni-dimensionally sex did not appear to be the

determining factor in anger expression or suppression.

Kopper's (1993) investigation of 629 university students and the relationship of

gender, sex role identity, and Type A behaviour using psychometric test for anger,

depression, sex role, hostility, interpersonal behaviour and activity found significant


multivariate effects for gender role, F(l2, 1446) = 6.64, p <.0001, and behaviour pattern

type, F(4, 480) = 3.93, p <.0038, but not for sex or any of the interactions. Also found in his

study was a consistent relationship for gender role and anger proneness, suppression, and

control and the tendency to express anger outwardly and once again that sex was not a

determining factor in the multiple dimensions of anger expression. This study found that

masculine gender role types showed more proneness to anger and to express anger

outwardly and less likely to suppress or control anger expression. In contrast feminine

' gender role types were least likely to express anger, more likely to suppress anger and

control anger expression.

The study by Milovchevich et al. (2000) used a sample drawn from the Australian

community, and found that gender role predicted anger experience, expression and control

better than biological sex. In comparing sex, gender role and sex of target they found a

significant main effects for gender role, F (3,351) = 3.48, P < 0.001. They also found that

gender role was significant for state anger, F (3,350) = 3.803, p < 0.01; and for anger

expression, F (3,350) = 11.164, P < 0.0001. No effect sizes were reported so critical values

ofF were compared to observed value ofF. Critical F for Gender role main effect and state

anger is F (3,351) = 2.62, P < 0.001, When critical F is compared to the reported observed

F the findings are not large. In contrast the observed F for gender role on anger expression

is large. Care though must be taken with the findings and must be kept in context as they

are based on self reports.

The above studies showed consistently that gender role was a better and significant

predictor than sex. Kopper (1993), and Kopper and Epperson (1991, 1996) identified

gender role as a better predictor of anger. While the findings contribute to the

understanding of anger experience and expression as well as their relationship with gender,

the use of university students placed limitations on the findings to be generalised.


Additionally all the studies relied on self repmis which have inherent potential to over

report positive and under report negative personal characteristics. The methodological

shortfall of self reports may possibly be overcome by using a person familiar with the

participant, or by independent observer scoring. Milovchevich et al. (2000) continued to

demonstrate the utility of gender role in anger research and by using a sample drawn from

the Australian community reduced factors that limit the generalising of findings as a result

of using university populations.

Biological factors are now emerging as stable and reliable predictors for exploring

anger and other emotions (Gray, Burgess, Schaefer, Yarkoni, Larsen, & Braver, 2005).

Neuroscience is demonstrating the role of brain structures in anger experience and

expression, and showing anger is better explained through prefrontal and limbic system

cortical structures and biological based personality dimensions (Kumari, ffytche, Williams,

& Gray, 2007). Furthermore, the personality dimension of extraversion-introversion

appears to be growing in recognition that it may better predict the expression and

experience of anger than either sex or gender role (Richardson & Hammock, 2006).

While adherence to case and methodological comparison has been implemented,

the literature review is biased more towards the theoretical aspects of anger. This is due to

the limited depth of applicable research studies specifically relating to anger. Much

research is confounded with aggression or hostility or relates to animal studies. The review

that follows will examine aspects of anger affect and regulation, whether anger is a

positive, negative or functional force, the basis of anger, and what might best explain anger

expression and experience.


ANGER AFFECT AND REGULATION

Anger like other affective states, defined as feelings about an integral or incidental

stimulus, is a complex construct with its experience possibly only fully understandable as

an individual and phenomenologically unique experience (Eckhardt, Norlander &

Deffenbacher, 2004; Griffiths, 2004; Peters, Vastfjall, Garling & Slovic, 2006; Pfister &

Bohm, 2008). As an affective state, anger shares the complexity associated with emotions

in general (Eckhardt et al., 2004; Griffiths, 2004).

This complexity can be demonstrated by research showing that affective states can

arise from immediate response to stimuli or as a result of anticipation of a future occurrence

and that the same situation experienced by different people can evoke different emotions

and levels of arousal (Loewenstein & Lerner, 2003). It has been proposed by Peters (2006)

that the purpose of these affective states is to provide information to guide choices, focus

attention and make certain kinds of knowledge more accessible, act as a motivator that

influence approach avoidance tendencies, and act as a common denominator to make

judgements and decisions through comparison of events on a common underlying

dimension.

Anger is considered to be a primary and frequently occurring affective state.

According to Averill (1982), anger is experienced one to two times a week, with the targets

more likely to be friends and intimates than strangers. Scherer, Wranik, Sangsue, Tran, and

Scherer (2004) surveyed 9000 German and Swiss adults, and found that anger was the

second most experienced emotion after happiness. That study also showed that 70% of

reported emotions were experienced without being experienced contemporaneously with

other emotions. While the size of the survey would seem to provide reliability to their

findings the limitation of the study is the survey is once again based on self reports and was

only across two countries closely located geographically.


In addition to anger being a common experience, it is one of the few emotions that

people can recognise quickly and accurately even while they are under cognitive load

(Tracy & Robins, 2008). Initially thought of as cultural specific, anger understanding has

evolved to encompass an interactionist perspective that views anger, emotional experience

and expression as being both universal and cultural specific with familiarity with the

culture determining the speed of emotion recognition (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2003).

As an affective state, anger can be experienced as a short lived emotional state

arising from cognitive, somatic and environmental antecedents, or a mood which is a longer

more enduring state that often has no identifiable antecedent associated with it (Bower &

Forgas, 2000; Buchanan, 2007; Scherer, 2000). While these angry states are quite different

in duration, they both have an affective impact on behaviour. Not only do these states

provide information to self and others, but act specifically as incentives or deterrents, and

as guide to one's and others behaviour (Buchanan, 2007; Peters, 2006; Van Kleef, &

CoAte', 2007).

It has been demonstrated that anger affect may be cognitively regulated with people

able to conceal, display, or modify its experience and expression in their interactions with

others (Gross, 2002). In the area ofregulation, Hochschild's (1983) theory of emotional

labour is the dominant construct for understanding affect regulation. Hochschild proposes

that regulation can occur through deep acting where experienced feelings are consciously

modified and surface acting where emotional expression such as facial gestures, voice tone,

posturing etc, are regulated without inner feelings being modified. Similar to Festinger's

(1957) theory of cognitive dissonance, dissonance is more likely when incongruence

between felt and expressed emotion occurs, such as when surface acting is employed

(Grandey, 2003). Dependent on the level of distress experienced, more serious pathological

outcomes may result (Grandey, 2003).


In summary, anger is a complex and frequently experienced affective state. As an

affective state it can be short lived or of a longer duration. While at a basic level anger can

be thought of as feelings about a stimulus it can also be regulated and appears to also have

some key roles. These key roles for anger are to focus attention, provide information to self

and others, and guide choices. Anger like most emotions is viewed as a common

denominator in the making of judgements and action choices.

ANGER: A POSITIVE, NEGATIVE AND FUNCTIONAL FORCE

The extant literature and general public perception of anger has been biased towards

perceiving anger as a negative force (Bean, 2005; Robbins, 2000; Del Vecchio & O'Leary,

2004). The classification of anger as a negative emotion is possibly due to the way many

theorists classify emotions by looking at the eliciting situation rather than the motivation or

outcome (Harmon-Jones & Sigelman, 2001). Given that situations involving anger are

considered to be unfavourable or incongruent to individual goals, it is not hard to

understand the negative categorisation applying to anger (Harmon-Jones & Sigelman,

2001).

More recently, this view has started to change with some now viewing the emotion

as having a positive dimension (Bean, 2005; Van Kleef & CoAte', 2007). This changing

perspective is associated with the view that the valence of anger is determined on the

outcome of its manifestation, such as the harm done or whether the anger was perceived to

be appropriate or legitimate (Del Vecchio & O'Leary, 2004).

Furthermore the positive aspect of anger may have been subsumed by the lack of a

clear definition of anger that has seen anger, aggression, rage and similar affects treated

interchangeably, or the limited research undertaken to date (Wranik, 2004). Additionally,

failure to recognise all aspects of anger may be due to adopting a purely functionalist


approach to emotions in terms of phyla-ontogenetic continuity that looks at emotions too

simply, and from a perspective of biologically primitive rather than biologically

sophisticated and interpretable events (Massey, 2002, Wranik, 2004).

Averill (1982) and Tavris (1989) both claim anger is a unique and complex human

emotion and that animal studies are of limited value as animal behaviour involves

aggression. Also the study of angry faces appears to be a popular research method, but this

type of study focuses on anger perception and ignores the importance of anger feelings

(Wranik, 2004). Additionally, to explore anger as a simple emotion fails to recognise that it

is currently regarded as a multidimensional construct consisting of physiological cognitive,

phenomenological, and behavioural variables (Eckhardt et al., 2004).

How then best to understand anger? Since anger is an emotion it is often explained

and conceptualised from a hedonic valence theory perspective of approach and avoidance

which for most emotions is appropriate as the action tendencies associated with them

conform to hedonic valence principles (Berkowitz & Harmon-Jones, 2004; Harmon-Jones

& Sigelman, 2001 ). Yet if anger is a purely negative affect it does not conform to the

principles of this theory, as when it manifests it does so usually as an approach rather than

avoidance behaviour and therefore operates contrary to hedonic valence principles

(Harmon-Jones & Sigelman, 2001). Another, and perhaps better, way to understand anger

is from the most fundamental of human motivations where the goal is to minimize danger

and threat, and to maximize pleasure (Gordon, 2000). Adopting this approach allows anger

to be understood from a motivational perspective and allow the action of anger to be

interpreted in terms of situated meaning and recognise it as a functional relationship

between an individual and their environment (Witherington & Crichton, 2007).

The area of neuroscience where research has demonstrated that the prefrontal

regions ofthe brain are asymmetrically involved in the expression and experience of


emotion provides one example that supports the view that anger may be better understood

from a motivation goal congruent approach. Harmon-Jones and Sigelman (2001) clarified

whether prefrontal asymmetrical activity is associated with emotional valence or

motivational direction, and used electroencephalographic technology to monitor right and

left prefrontal cortical activity of induced anger in 48 male undergraduate students. Their

study found that the cortical activity increased in the left prefrontal cortex, an area

associated with motivation rather than the right frontal cortex, an area associated with

valence.

A study that perhaps shows that anger is best viewed from a motivational and

situated perspective, and can be both a positive or negative force is a study by Vitaglione

and Barnett (2003). They tested whether empathic anger motivated desires intended to help

a victim or punish transgressors. This study is novel as empathy is generally associated

with being congruent with sadness. The concept of anger as an action tendency of empathy

is not new and was first proposed by Hoffman (1989). In their study, Vitaglione and

Barnett administered questionnaires to 191 female and male college students and used

descriptive analyses, correlation analyses, and path analyses to measure state empathic

anger and sadness responses to an audio-taped appeal of a woman who was injured and the

victim of a drunk driver. The study based on reported induced emotional effect of sadness

or anger found that empathic anger appears to be a valid construal of the way in which

some people experience empathy for a victimized person, and this experience has related

motivational consequences including engagement in both helping and punishing behaviours

that may also be viewed as prosocial.

From a methodological perspective laboratory induced emotional affect is better

than no induced affect at all. The risk in this methodology though is that the environment

and the experience is reasonably artificial and based on intended actions that are developed


without all potentially possible stimuli or conditions that reflect real life encounters.

Participant engagement may also not be genuine. Possibly the use of interviews of persons

recounting real life experiences may be a better method of assessment.

Vitaglione and Barnett's (2003) study provides an opportunity for future research.

While the authors recommend further study using sex to identify difference, this may be a

limiting factor. As found by Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) and Hyde (2005) the use of sex as

a predictor generally only finds small differences. Given research in anger as a positive

force is sparse, the opportunity exists to examine anger and empathy from the basis of a

socially constructed role or a biologically determined personality dimension.

It is difficult to find many examples in the literature that explore whether anger has

hedonic valence or is motivationally based. Much of the literature puts forth theoretical

perspectives or attempts to converge theoretical positions on emotions in general and this is

perhaps an indication of the complexity of emotions. For example Williams (2006)

proposes an integrative neuroscience model attempting to bring together both functionalist

and dynamic systems perspectives. The model attempts to be significant by ensuring

stimulus relevance to core motivations of minimise danger and maximize pleasure. A

framework is proposed that brings together the areas of cognition and emotion,

motivational theories of arousal and orienting and understanding of neural systems. The

framework uses a temporal continuum in which significance processing can take place over

milliseconds as unconscious and automatic processes, to seconds, in which memory is

shaped, to minutes where the controlled and conscious mechanisms take precedence.

William's (2006) paper is worthy ofthought and consideration as a framework to

explore anger and develop anger research methodology. William's attempt at integration of

quite different psychological domains is exemplary and is a serious attempt to converge

views and provide a workable construct in which emotions like anger can be researched.


Integration and convergence is a good thing as it sets a clear guiding framework for

research. A clear framework that embodies integration of competing theories and domains

will contribute greatly to reducing confusion and uncertainty caused by the multitude of

theories in the area of emotion (Bean, 2005; Davis, 2004; Del Vecchio & O'Leary, 2004;

Robbins, 2000; Wranik, 2004).

Anger is functional. At the intrapersonallevel, anger has been shown to predispose

thinking and behaviour towards self interest (Del Vecchio & O'Leary, 2004). This includes

' the removal of frustrations and blockages to goals (Zurbriggen & Sturman, 2002). Another

feature of anger is that it has been shown to sustain persistence of endeavour and can

strengthen commitment to an action (Turner, 2007). This commitment can be to personal

change or improvement to ones own circumstances or applied at the community or macro

level where actions can cause one to become involved in correcting perceived injustices,

maintaining the status quo or becoming involved in community issues of importance (Boss,

2006; Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003; Friedman, Olekalns, & Goates,

2004). Remembering that positive or negative is often a subjective judgement, the

interpersonal and intrapersonal events just described would be associated with positive

anger perceptions if that act was associated with an outcome of low harm to self or others,

whereas a negative anger perception of these events would be where harm was perceived to

occur or behaviour demonstrated low regard to others (Bean, 2005; Boss; Friedman et al.,

2004).

In summary, anger is now seen as a force that is judged by how it is used or by its

outcomes either on self or others. As a force, anger can therefore be both positive and

negative. Anger also seems to be better explained as a motivational force rather than from a

hedonic valence perspective. A motivational perspective allows anger to be thought of as a

functional force that has a relationship with the environment and the meaning of the elicited


stimulus. Research in the area of neuroscience supports a motivational view and that anger

is an unconscious and conscious action that occurs in milliseconds or over minutes or

longer.

THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF ANGER

To examine the issue of the basis of anger, MacLean's (1973, 1990) concept of the

triune brain provides a good framework for exploration. MacLean argues an evolutionary

position that new brain capacities are developed by building on existing neural structures

and not from scratch. Under this concept, the human brain currently has three different

layers of neural anatomy. The oldest brain structure is the brain stem and cerebellum and

maintains basic physiological functions. The second neural layer that evolved and that

encompasses the first layer consists ofthe limbic system that also includes the amygdala,

which is crucial in registering incoming emotional stimuli and storing emotional memories.

The last and most recent neural layer is the neocortex that consists of an outer layer of grey

matter mostly given over to the conscious processing of sensory stimuli.

MacLean (1973, 1990) further proposes, ignoring the first layer which is concerned

with autonomic functions, that humans have both an emotional (limbic) and rational

(prefrontal cortex) brain. These two structures work together in parallel and are linked by

neural pathways to form a dynamic and interactive system where information moves in

both directions between the two. Hence, the link between emotion and cognition is highly

interactive. Under this concept each brain structure produces different perceptions and

memory. In addition not only do unconscious emotional feelings exist independent of

rational appraisals but given the significant number of neural connections running from the

limbic system to the cortex it is more likely that emotional impulses may override rational

cognition (Fishbane, 2007; Massey, 2002). Massey also provides further evidence that


emotions may dominate over rational cognition, where he reviews laboratory studies that

show that the amygdala component of the limbic system receives incoming information a

quarter of a second before it reaches the prefrontal cortex (Massey, 2002). Therefore

emotion activates first before the rational brain can process information (Massey, 2002).

Support for a biological basis of anger in the form of existence of neural structures

that activate cortical activity comes from a study by Damasio, et al. (2000). Forty-one non

clinical participants were used to test a hypothesis that emotions are part of a multi-tiered

and evolutionarily set of neural mechanism. The study used Positron Emission Topography

to scan the whole brain for the activation associated with four primary emotions (sadness,

happiness, anger or fear). The emotions were induced by the recall of personal emotional

episodes. Rises in psychophysiological activity was found in all cases and preceded the

subject's signal that the target emotion was felt. This effect supports the notion that the

enactment of emotion precedes the feeling state and is a relevant finding for support of self

perception theory.

The study found specific to anger, activation of a number of cortical areas that

included the: dorsal pons, dorsal midbrain, hypothalamus, insula, anterior sector of the

cingulate cortex, anterior pons, both sides of the midline cerebellum, right lateral

cerebellum, lenticular nucleus, bilateral activation in the motor cortex. The study also tested

a subset of 16 men and 16 women for difference in anger activation of cortical areas and

found one significant difference in the left anterior insula that was engaged more

prominently in women than men. The hypothesis of the study was supported and the

findings extrapolated to form an opinion that the neural patterns found for all primary

emotions depicted cortical structures ofthe mental states known as feelings. The results

support the idea that part of the feeling-state of emotions might be grounded in emotion

specific neural patterns.


In summary, the physiological evidence shows that emotions such as anger are

based in multi-tiered and evolutionarily sets of neural mechanisms. While the literature

shows anger can be mediated either rationally or as a result of developmental forces,

evidence from imaging technology of cortical activity appears stronger for a biological

basis. MacLean's (1973, 1990) triune brain concept where brain structure build

continuously on top of existing structures is compelling and is consistent with the evidence

in the literature. Furthermore, Massey's (2002) suggestion of a rational and an emotive

brain working in parallel, but with the emotional brain dominating also seems plausible.

SOCIAL EXPLANATION OF ANGER EXPERIENCE AND EXPRESSION

Anger, similar to other emotions, is heterogenic in that individuals experience and

express it differently and to different levels of intensity (Davidson, 2005). There is also a

strong belief that anger is expressed and experienced differently within and between groups

or categories of individuals such as females and males, gender role types, and personality

dimensions (Newman et al.,2006; Rothbart, 2007). As indicated earlier, most sex

differences are marginal, possibly due to anger differences being subtle or difficult to

obtain understanding of, or perhaps the right questions have not yet been asked (Newman et

al., 2006).

While research has sought to understand the variance in anger, it does not seem to

have explicitly examined whether anger is socially or biologically mediated. That is does

sex, gender role, or a biologically based personality dimension better explain anger

experience and expression. Given that anger so far seems to be primarily biological and

can override rational thinking, yet appears to be influenced by socialisation practices of

culture as well as situations applying to social interaction, it seems timely for the question

raised earlier to be examined explicitly (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2003; Fishbane, 2007,


MacLean, 1973, MacLean, 1990; Massey, 2002). The question ofwhether anger is

biological or socially constructed would fit well with H.J. Eysenck (1997) who encouraged

the use all of the tools available to resolve problems as well as to integrate all aspects of

psychology and the natural sciences in the pursuit of answers.

Anger expression and experience is influenced by nurturing and developmental

processes commencing in childhood (Fishbane, 2007; Richardson & Hammock, 2006; Van

Kleef & Co~te', 2007). These nurturing and development processes include perceived

power or status in social interactions, or the value applied to a relationship or past

experiences that provide reinforcement for how one is supposed to experience or express

anger, and the internalisation of behaviours that develop gender roles, contribute to how a

person may express and experience anger (Eagly & Wood, 2003; Fishbane, 2007;

Richardson & Hammock, 2006; Van Kleef & Co~te', 2007).

Research shows that both females and males thrive on the positive impact of

nurturing relationships on physical and emotional health, and that social rejection or

exclusion may be a very undesirable experience (Goleman, 2006). It is not surprising that

rejection is an unwanted experience with studies showing rejection activates parts of the

brain associated with physical pain (Goleman). If it is assumed that preserving positive

relationships and well being is a prime goal, then it is likely that anger experience and

expression may be mediated by a multitude of social factors focussed on nurturing

development and retention of important relationships or conforming to cultural norms and

values (Evers et al.; 2007)

Nurturing factors assist with gender role development as a result of socialisation

practices. The influence of socialisation on gender role development is probably best

explained by gender schema theory. Gender schema theory was first proposed by Bern

(1974), and the development of masculine and feminine roles was expanded by Taylor and


Hall (1981) to include androgynous and undifferentiated roles. Bern's theory asserts that

from childhood a person is socialised into gender specific roles that tell them how they

must behave and this manifests by directing their behaviour at the social level. These

internalised socialisation experiences consolidate to direct behaviour and causes a person to

act in culturally approved and gender stereotypic ways (Bern, 1974; Saucier, McCreary, &

Saxberg, 2002).

Manstead and Fischer's (2001) concept of social appraisal complements the gender

schema theory, as it builds upon the importance of appraisal of the social situation in

mediating emotional events. Manstead and Fischer propose that appraisal is not limited to

the situation of the social interaction during an emotional event, but also extends to the

thoughts, feelings and behaviours of oneself and others. The appraisal plays a significant

role in the way the emotion associated with that event is experienced and expressed, and

these are influenced by the imagined social implications of these expressions (Manstead &

Fischer, 2001).

Evers et al. (2007) undertook a study that examined whether the way anger is

experienced and expressed is influenced by the imagined social implications of these

expressions from a female and male schema perspective. The study involved 119

Amsterdam university students who were induced to believe that the partner, that they were

paired with, had rated an essay written by them as poor. They found that men and women

did not differ in their reports of experienced anger. However, they did differ in their

expression of anger. Expression differed on the social context manipulation where

participants had been led to believe that they would either meet or not meet the person who

had angered them. Where participants thought they would not meet the person who had

angered them, men and women did not differ in anger expression. However, in the social

condition, where participants thought they would meet the person who had angered them,


women expressed their anger less than men did. The lower expression of anger for women

was found to be associated with scores on social appraisal indicating that women were

focussed more on the negative consequences of their anger expression. A univariate

analysis of social appraisal showed that women reported stronger social appraisal than men,

F(l, Ill)= 5.12, p < .026, YJ 2 = .04.

Evers et al. (2007) provide support for how socialisation, the situation and the

imagined consequences combine to determine how anger is expressed though not

experienced. Furthermore given that anger expression and therefore control varies as an

implied socialisation experience, it may have value in helping to understand how anger is

or can be controlled. Since experience is similar across gender role, socialisation and

cultural practices might be relevant but may not be significant factors for exploring anger

experience.

Sex as a predictor of difference was first challenged by Maccoby and Jacklin's

(1974) review of more than 2,000 studies over a wide variety of domains that found

differences between sexes were not large, and that females and males were generally more

similar than different. This finding not only spurred on the search for what could best

explain differences, but also identified the limitations of using such a broad categorisation

(Minton, 2000; Richardson & Hammock, 2006). More recently, Hyde (2005) reviewed 46

meta-analyses, and concluded that females and males were more similar than different.

These findings should not rule the category of sex out of research all together but

when it is used its purpose needs to be clearly stated or when a difference is found it needs

to be more intensely explored to identify why that difference exists. For example its

usefulness and relevance to medical research where sex based physiological difference may

be instrumental in assessing specific purpose medically focussed treatment trials.


As indicated previously sex should not be abandoned as sex and gender role can

both be found to explain variation at levels of significance. This can be demonstrated by

Kinney, Smith, and Donzella's (2001) study involving 445 United States college students

that examined sex, gender role, self discrepancies and self awareness. Using regression

analysis they found that anger repression was explained by masculinity and a desire to be

masculine and public awareness; tendency to express anger was explained by sex,

masculinity and public awareness. This study has value for a number of reasons. It implies

th~t there is an interaction between sex and gender role and that the masculine gender role

and male sex factors interact and demonstrate more anger expression than other types.

Additionally, there is an effect of social forces such as public awareness and associated

control perspectives on the expression and suppression of anger. Kinney et al. identify that

gender role is better at explaining anger variance but sex can also explain anger.

Based on the interaction identified by Kinney et al. (2001), one's thinking is

directed towards considering sex and gender role as complimentary and interchangeable

factors that measure socially constructed psychological variables but at different levels.

Under this proposal gender schema theory would be applicable to both sex and gender role.

This removes the ambiguity of what is being measured when using sex as a measure of

difference. Also sex would measure psychological variables of interest at a high level

while gender role with more sub categories would measure these variables at more

discriminant levels. Therefore a clear definition of what is being researched becomes

explicit when using sex as a predictor of difference.

Furthermore both Hyde (2005) and Minton (2000) have raised concerns that the use

of gender may be inappropriate due to unintended consequences. There is a risk of stigma

and stereotyping associated with use of sex as a predictor, which therefore allows gender


role to be a better and less potentially politicised variable when accounting for the variance

in anger response and expression.

While the literature suggests that gender role is a better predictor of anger variance

than sex, the difficulty is that gender role type characteristics are affected by societal values

and norms (Richardson & Hammock, 2006). The impact of this is important on two fronts.

The first is reliability of measurement and the second is that psychological tests may be

inaccurate unless they reflect the accepted norms and values of the times (Smiler, 2004).

Because of these issues, gender role may not be the best variable for seeking explanation of

variance associated with anger.

BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF ANGER EXPERIENCE AND EXPRESSION

The comparison of biologically based predictors of anger with gender role appears

to be a sensible way of gaining greater understanding of anger expression and experience.

From a biological perspective, anger can be linked to states of arousal that include

activation of the general sympathetic system and hormone/neurotransmitter functions

(Buss, 2004). Earlier, this review demonstrated the role of the limbic system and

particularly the amygdala and how it is the first brain structure to receive information.

Bo"ddeker and Stemmler (2000) summarise the findings of a number of studies

using biological correlates. The studies that form part of the summaries show that trait

anger is associated with experiential anger but not with heart rate responses. Trait anger

was related to experienced anger and to higher physiological reactivity and anger

suppression. Anger-in explained predicted negative mood, whereas anger-out was unrelated

to anger experiences in daily life. Anger-out was related to higher physiological reactivity

during harassment, and finally anger control correlated negatively with physiological

reactivity. While these summarised results show inconsistency, Bo"ddeker and Stemmler


also found that studies assessing the relationship of the personality trait of extraversion to

emotional anger experience have yielded more consistent results. Moreover, extraversion

has consistently been related to less reactivity in negative emotions.

Bo"ddeker and Stemmler (2000) recruited 80 German females and used anger self-

reports, physiological reactivity (diastolic blood pressure, skin temperature at the forehead,

and EMG extensor digitorum), and ratings of facial anger to explore anger response styles

(anger-in, anger-out, or anger control). Participants were induced and assessed for anger on ,,

three occasions. The study found that habitual anger response styles did not predict actual

anger styles, but extraversion did. The results showed that over each induction period

treatment groups reported more anger than control groups, F(1, 77) = 55.03, p < .01. When

the assessment of anger response and personality scores using forehead skin temperature

(TMP), were inserted into the multiple regression equation, introverted subjects had a score

of 1.12 in Treatment and of 0.98 in control. They also found that control subjects scoring

low on extraversion reacted with high denial (stronger physiological and behavioural anger

than experiential anger). Participants low on extraversion and who had undergone induced

anger treatment showed the opposite, and demonstrated low denial. The results suggest that

both the particular situation influences the anger response style. Bo"ddeker and Stemmler

recommended the use of a biologically based personality predictor to best explain anger

experience and expression.

The extraversion-introversion personality dimension of Eysenck' s (1967) is

biological, and based on cortical arousal. According to Eysenck, introverts are cortically

over-aroused and this causes them to be more restrained and inhibited and to seek non-

arousing social situations with the goal to reduce external stimulation. Extraverts on the

other hand have a state of lower internal arousal that causes them to manifest unrestrained

and impulsive behaviours, and to seek highly arousing social situations to maximise


external stimulation. Therefore, extraversion and introversion personality type behaviour is

focussed on maintaining an appropriate level of arousal (Bullock & Gilliland, 1993).

Extraverts experience more positive emotions than introverts (Mischel, Shoda, &

Smith, 2004), and in relation to anger experience and expression, extraverts express anger

due to their need for social dominance, and have lower anger control (Bo""ddeker &

Stemmler, 2000). Introverts have been reported to have strong emotional reactions to anger

and demonstrate high levels of anger expression and internal anger experience (Bo""ddeker

r

& Stemmler, 2000).

Eysenck (1967) identified the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) as the

brain area responsible for differences in arousal between extraverts and introverts.

Eysenck's biological basis of personality is often contrasted to Gray's (1972,1981)

Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) associated with withdrawal or behaviour inhibition

and introversion, and the Behavioural Activation System (BAS) that is associated with

activation of approach behaviours and extraversion. Gray originally referred to his theory

as a modernisation Eysenck's theory.

Support for the concept that cortical activity arousal relates to the personality

dimension of extraversion-introversion has been found by Tran and Mcisaac (2004) who

assessed frontal, central and posterior brain regions activity in 50 participants. They

recorded alpha rhythms in the 8-13 Hz range, and found that extraverts had lower cortical

arousal than introverts.

Bono and Vey (2007) used 162 undergraduate students to assess two emotional

regulation tasks requiring the expression of either anger or enthusiasm. Heart rate was used

to measure personality incongruent actions. They found that when extraverts were asked to

express a personality congruent emotion (enthusiasm), their heart rate decreased. In

contrast, when they are asked to express a personality incongruent emotion


(anger/irritation), the heart rate of extraverts increased. Hence, personality and individual

differences play a key role in successful emotional performance.

Kumari et al., (2007) investigated the influence of extraversion on cortical arousal

using fMRI during a memory load task. Extraversion was assessed with the Eysenck

Personality Questionnaire-Revised. Results were consistent with Eysenck's (1967) theory,

which predicted that the higher the extraversion score, the greater the change in fMRI

signal for the memory load task Additionally, extraversion scores were negatively

as~ociated with resting fMRI signals in the thalamus and Broca's area extending to

Wernicke's area, and showed a negative relationship between extraversion and resting

arousal. Hence, the results from this study strongly support Eysenck' s arousal model.

The biological explanation of anger using the extraversion-introversion personality

dimension has intuitive appeal, and is supported by the literature (Gray, Burgess, Schaefer,

Yarkoni, Larsen, & Braver, 2005). Extraversion-introversion may be a more reliable factor

than gender role because the latter is associated with accepted stereotypical behaviour that

may fluctuate over time as societal norms change (Richardson & Hammock, 2006).

SUMMARY OF SOCIAL AND BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF ANGER

EXPERIENCE AND EXPRESSION

The question raised previously was whether anger is socially or biologically

mediated. The literature indicates that the factor of sex shows females and males are more

similar than different, and that this may be due to the category being too broad or

confounding interaction effects of social and biological factors. It has also been suggested

that sex be viewed as a category that measures socially constructed psychological variables,

but at a less discriminant level than gender role. From a socially determined developmental

perspective, gender role has been shown to be a better predictor of difference and gender

schema and social appraisal theory is helpful in explaining why this is so. There is


compelling evidence that a biological determined factor based on cortical arousal may be a

better predictor of anger than socially determined factors. Current research shows that

information passes through the limbic system, a biological cortical system and centre for

emotion, before other areas of the brain such as the rational prefrontal cortex. Studies of the

biologically based personality construct of extraversion-introversion show this construct to

predict anger response styles better than habitual anger. Studies examining cortical arousal

using alpha rhythms and fMRI methodology have found support for Eysenck's (1967)

arousal theory of personality and support that a biological based personality dimension

yield stable results when exploring differences.

In summary, there is strong argument that the biologically based personality

dimension of extraversion-introversion is influential in researching both affective and

socially constructed gender states. While there is agreement that gender role is a better

predictor than sex, the literature suggests that there is a strong case for the biological based

personality dimension of extraversion-introversion as a better predictor of anger experience

and expression.

CONCLUSIONS

There is still much to be learned about emotional states and William James' (1884,

1890), question of "what is an emotion" is still unresolved. While biological, psychological

and social forces shape human behaviour, these forces are intertwined with emotion.

Emotional states such as anger are frequent experiences and can provide both powerful

positive and negative experiences. Anger is a complex construct, and may be thought of as

feelings about a stimulus. It has several important roles that include the focusing of

attention, provision of information to self and others, and in guiding choices.

To understand anger it appears that it is best viewed as a motivational force rather

than a hedonic valence. Neuroscience research supports a motivational view, and shows


that anger can be both an unconscious and conscious action that occurs in milliseconds or

over minutes or longer.

Anger is no longer viewed as a solely negative force, but one that can be positive in

nature with the outcome or its legitimacy determining whether it is judged positively or

negatively. One of the complexities in understanding and researching anger is that like

other emotions, anger is heterogeneous in that individuals respond differently to the same

situation or challenge and appears to be culturally embedded.

From a methodological perspective the quest to explain human anger has been

confounded with it being interchanged with aggression and hostility and the use of animal

studies as well as confusion as to what anger is or how it functions. Also regular use of self

reports has the potential of over reporting or under reporting of positive and negative

personal characteristics, experiences, or intended actions. This shortfall could be improved

by the use of a person familiar with the participant or a independent observer. Neuroscience

though is providing methodology that will be useful in identifying cortical activity

associated with predictors based on biologically based personality and rational thinking.

From a theoretical perspective, anger is now starting to be viewed more as an

emotion that is based more in biological than social causes. This is demonstrated by

emotional cortical structures seeming to take precedent in information processing over that

of rational cortical structures. In addition while developmentally based social forces are

influential and explain anger experience and expression more than sex, biological based

predictors such as the personality dimensions of extraversion-introversion seem to be more

stable and have better potential to explain anger experience and expression.

Further research opportunities exist to explore anger which is largely biological by

using biological based personality dimensions such as extraversion -introversion.

Additionally while biologically based anger does seem to be mediated by social forces


which have been identified as both sex and gender role, further studies developing

categories that are combinations of these predictors may also be useful in anger research

and be able to explain more variance. Research into the positive affect of anger also

presents an opportunity as it is an under researched area. Finally, William's (2006) paper

that attempts integration of different psychological domains presents as a possible

framework to explore anger and to use to develop anger research methodology.


References

Archer, J. (2006). Cross-Cultural Differences in Physical Aggression Between Partners: A Social-Role Analysis Personality and Social Psychology Review 10, 133-153.

Averill, J.A. (1982). Anger and Aggression: an essay on emotion. New York Springer-Verlag.

Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K. D. C., DeWall, N. & Zhang, L. (2007). How Emotion Shapes Behavior: Feedback, Anticipation, and Reflection, Rather Than Direct Causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 167-203.

B~an, P. (2005). Unfolding the Mystery of Anger. Psychotherapy in Australia, 11, 72-78.

Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Bern, S. L. (1981). Bern Sex Role Inventory. Professional Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Bern. S.L. (1984). Androgyny and gender schema theory: a conceptual and empirical integration. In T.B. Sonderegger, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 32, 179-226). Lincoln: University Nebraska Press.

Becker, J.B., Arnold, A.P., Berkley, K.J., Blaustein, J.D., Eckel, L.A., Hampson, E., et al. (2005). Strategies and Methods for Research on Sex Differences in Brain and Behavior. Endocrinology, 146, 1650-1673.

Berkowitz, L., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2004). Toward an understanding ofthe determinants of anger. Emotion, 4: 107-130.

Bo"ddeker, I., & Stemmler, G. (2000). Who responds how and when to anger? The assessment of actual anger response styles and their relation to personality. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 737-762.

Bono, J.E., & Vey, M.A. (2007). Personality and Emotional Performance: Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Self-Monitoring. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 177-192

Boss, P. (2006). Resilience and health. Grief Matters, 9, 52-57.

Bower, G. H., & Forgas, J.P. (2000). Affect, memory, and social cognition. In E. Eich, J. F. Kihlstrorn, G. H. Bower, J.P. Forgas, & P.M. Niedenthal (Eds.), Cognition and emotion (pp. 87-168). New York: Oxford University Press.

Buchanan, T.W. (2007). Retrieval of Emotional Memories. Psychological Bulletin, 133,761-779.


Bullock, W.A., & Gilliland, K. (1993). Eysenck's Arousal Theory ofintroversionExtraversion: A Converging Measures Investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 113-123.

Buss, A.H., (2004). Anger, Frustration, and Aversiveness. Emotion, 4, 131-132.

Caspi, A., Roberts, B.W., & Shiner, R.L. (2005). Personality Development: Stability and Change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453-485.

Cozolino L. (2006). The social brain. Psychotherapy Australia, 12,7-12.

Davidson, R.J. (2005). Well-being and affective style. In F. Huppert, N. Baylis, B. , Keverne (Eds.), The Science of Well-Being (pp. 107- 139). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Damasio, A.R., Grabowski, T.J., Ponto, L.L.B., Bechara.A., Damasio,H., Parvizi, J., & et al. (2000). Subcortical and cortical brain activity during the feeling of self-generated emotions. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 1048-1056.

Davis, D.N. (2004). Why do anything? Emotion, affect and the fitness function underlying behaviour and thought. Affective Computing, AISB 2004, University of Leeds, UK.

Del Vecchio,T., & O'Leary, K.D. (2004). Effectiveness of anger treatments for specific anger problems: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 15-34.

Diefendorff, J.M., & Gosserand, R.H. (2002). Understanding the emotional labor process: a control theory perspective. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 24, 945-959.

Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (2003). The Origins of sex differences in human behaviour: Evolved Dispositions versus Social Roles. In C.B.Travis (Ed.), Evolution Gender and Rape (p. 265). Cambridge, The MIT Press.

Eckhardt, C., Norlanderb, B., & Deffenbacher, J., (2004). The assessment of anger and hostility: a critical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 17-43.

Elfenbein, H.A., & Ambady, N. (2003) When Familiarity Breeds Accuracy: Cultural Exposure and Facial Emotion Recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 276-290.

Evers, C., Fischer, A.H., Mosquera, P.M.R., & Manstead, A.S.R. (2007). Anger and Social Appraisal: A "Spicy" Sex Difference? Emotion, 5, 258-266.

Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas.


Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Personality and experimental psychology: The unification of psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1224-1237.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, Ill.: Row Peterson.

Fishbane, M. (2007). Wired to Connect: Neuroscience, Relationships, and Therapy. Family Process, 46, 395-412.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2000). Cultivating positive emotions to optimize health and wellbeing. Prevention and Treatment, 3. Retrieved December 8,2007, from http:/ /j ournals.apa.org/prevention/volume3/pre003 000 1 a.html

Fr~drickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E,. & Larkin, G. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crises?: A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8,365-376.

Friedman, R., Olekalns, M., & Goates, N., (2004). The Positive and Negative Effects of Anger on Dispute Resolution: Evidence From Electronically Mediated Disputes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 369-376.

Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships. New York: Bantam Books.

Gordon, E. (2000) (ed.) "Integrative Neuroscience", Bringing Together Biological, Psychologicaland Clinical Models of the Human Brain, Harwood Academic Publishers.

Grandey, A.A. (2003). When "the show must go on": Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 86-96.

Gray, J. A. (1972). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion: A modification ofEysenck's theory. In V. D. Nebylitsyn & J. A. Gray (Eds.), The biological bases of individual behaviour (pp. 182-205). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique ofEysenck's theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality (pp. 246-276). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Gray, J.R., Burgess, G.C., Schaefer, A., Yarkoni, T., Larsen, R.J., Braver, T.S. (2005). Affective personality differences in neural processing efficiency confirmed using fMRI. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 5, 182-190.

Griffiths, P. E. (2004). Emotions as natural and normative kinds. Philosophy of Science, 71, 901-911.


Gross, J.J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences Psychophysiology, 39, 281-291.

Hebb, D.P. (1955). Drives and the c.n.s. (conceptual nervous system). Psychological Review, 62, 243-245.

Harmon-Jones, E., & Sigelman, J. (2001). State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 80, 797-803.

Hochschild, A.R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hoffman, M. L. (1989). Empathy and prosocial activism. InN. Eisenberg, J. Reykowski, & E. Staub (Eds.), Social and moral values (pp. 65-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hyde, J.S. (2005). The Gender Similarities Hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581-592.

James, W. (1884). What is an emotion? Mind, 19,188-205.

James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.

Kinney, T. A.,Smith, B.A.,Donzella, B. (2001). The Influence of Sex, Gender, SelfDiscrepancies, and Self-Awareness on Anger and Verbal Aggressiveness among U.S. College Students. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 245-75.

Kopper, B.A. & Epperson, D.L (1991). Sex and sex role comparisons in the expression of anger. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 15, 7-14.

Kopper, B.A. (1993). Role of Gender, sex role identity and type A behaviour in anger expression and mental health functioning. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 40, 232-237.

Kopper, B. A., & Epperson,D.L. (1996). The Experience and Expression of Anger: Relationships with Gender, Gender Role Socialization, Depression, and Mental Health Functioning. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 158-165.

Kumari, V., ffytche, D.H., Williams, S.C.R., & Gray, J.A. (2007) Personality Predicts Brain Responses to Cognitive Demands. The Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 10636-10641.

Laird, J.D. & Strout, S. (2007) Emotional Behaviors As Emotional Stimuli, In James A. Coan and John J. B. Allen, (Eds). The Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and Assessment. New York: Oxford University Press


Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In R. Davidson, K. Scherer & H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective science (pp. 619-642). New York: Oxford University Press.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

MacLean, PD. (1973). A Triune Concept of the Brain and Behavior. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.

MacLean, P.D. (1990). The Triune Brain in Evolution: Role in Paleocerebral Functions. New York: Plenum.

Manstead, A.S.R., & Fischer, A.H. (2001). Social Appraisal: The social world as ' object of and influence on appraisal process. In R. Klaus (Eds.), Appraisal

Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods & Research (pp. 221-232). Oxford University Press: US.

Massey, D.S. (2002). A BriefHistory ofHuman Society: The Origin and Role of Emotion in Social Life: 2001 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review, 67, 1-29.

Milovchevich, D., Howell, K., Drew, N., & Day, A. (2000). Sex and Gender Role difference in Anger: An Australian Community Study. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 117-127.

Minton, H.L. (2000). Gender at the Turn of the Century. American Psychologist, 55, 613-615.

Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Smith R.E. (2004). Introduction to Personality. (Seventh Edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Morf, C.C. (2006). Personality Reflected in a Coherent Idiosyncratic Interplay of Intra- and Interpersonal Self-Regulatory Processes. Journal of Personality, 7 4, 1527-1556.

Myrtek, M., Zanda, D., & Aschenbrenner, E. (2001). "Interactive psychophysiological Monitoring of Emotions in Students' Everyday Life. Replication Study", in J. Fahrenberg and M. Myrtek ( eds) Progress in Ambulatory Assessment: Computer- Assisted Psychological and Psychophysiological Methods in Monitoring and Field Studies, (pp. 415-34). Kirkland, W A: Hogrefe and Huber.

Newman, J.L., Fuqua, D.L., Gray, E.A., Simpson, D.B. (2006). Gender Differences in the relationship of Anger and Depression in a Clinical Sample. Journal of Counselling & Development, 84, 157-162.

Perbandt, K. (2007). Differential Effects of Incongruent Anger Expression on Memory Performance. Journal of Individual Differences, 280, 129-137.


Peters, E. (2006). The functions of affect in the constructionof preferences. In S. Lichtenstein & P. Slavic (Eds.), The construction of preference (pp. 454-463). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Peters, E., Vastfjall, D., Garling, T., & Slavic, P. (2006). Affect and decision making: A "hot" topic. Journal of Behavioral and Decision Making, 19, 79-85.

Pfister. H., & Bohm, G. (2008). The multiplicity of emotions: A framework of emotional functions in decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 5-17.

Richardson, D.S. & Hammock, G.D. (2006). Social context of human aggression: , Are we paying too much attention to gender? Aggression and Violent Behavior,

12,417-426.

Robbins, PR (2000). Anger, aggression, and violence: An interdisciplinary approach. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company

Rothbart, M.K. (2007). Development, and Personality, Current Directions in Psychological Science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 207-212.

Saucier, D.M., McCreary, D.R., Saxberg, J.K.J. (2002). Does gender role socialization mediate sex differences in mental rotations? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1101-1111.

Scherer, K. R. (2000). Psychological models of emotion. In J. C. Borod (Ed.), The neuropsychology of emotion (pp. 137-162). New York: Oxford University Press.

Scherer, K. R., Wranik, T., Sangsue, J., Tran, V., & Scherer U. (2004) Emotions in everyday life: probability of occurrence, risk factors, appraisal and reaction patterns Social Science Information, 43, 499-570.

Smiler, A.P. (2004). Thirty Years After the Discovery of Gender: Psychological Concepts and Measures of Masculinity. Sex Roles, 50, 15-26.

Strout, S.L., Sokol, R.I., Laird, J.D., & Thompson, N.S. (2004). The Evolutionary Foundation of Perceiving One's Own Emotions. Behavior and Philosophy, 32, 493-502.

Tavris, C. (1989). Anger: The misunderstood emotion. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Taylor, M.C., & Hall, J.A. (1981). Psychological Androgyny: Theories, method and conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 347-366.

Tracy, J.L., & Robins, R.W. (2008). The Automaticity of Emotion Recognition. Emotion, 8, 81-95.


Tran, Y., & Mcisaac, P. (2004) EXTROVERT or INTROVERT? Australasian Science, 25, 1.

Turner, M.M., (2007). Using emotion in risk communication: The Anger Activism. Model. Publications Relations Review, 33, 114-119.

Van Kleef, G.A., & Co~te', S. (2007). Expressing Anger in Conflict: When It Helps and When It Hurts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1557-1569.

Vitaglione,G.D., & Barnett, M.A. (2003). Assessing a New Dimension of Empathy: Empathic Anger as a Predictor of Helping and Punishing Desires. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 301-325.

Williams, L.M. (2006). An Integrative Neuroscience Model Of"Significance" ' Processing. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience, 5, 1-4 7.

Witherington, D.C., & Crichton, J.A. (2007). Frameworks for understanding emotions and their development: functionalist and dynamic systems approaches.

Emotion, 7, 628-37.

Wranik, T. (2004). Personality Under Stress: Who Gets Angry and Why? Individual Differences in Cognitive Appraisal and Emotion (online). These N° 336 Faculte de psychologie et des sciences de I' education de l'Universite de Geneve. http://www. unige.ch/ cyberdocuments/theses2005/W ranikT /these .pdf

Zurbriggen, E.L., & Sturman, T.S. (2002). Linking Motives and Emotions: A Test of McClelland's Hypotheses. Personality Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 521-535.


Appendix A

Faculty of Computing, Health and Science,

Guidelines for Contributions by Authors

http://www.apa.org/journals/emo/submission.html 20/03.2008

Emotion Editor: Elizabeth A. Phelps, PhD ISSN: 1528-3542 Published bi-monthly, beginning in February

Instructions to Authors


Please consult APA's Instructions for All Authors for information regarding Manuscript Preparation Submitting Supplemental Materials Abstract and Keywords References Figures Permissions Publication Policies Ethical Principles

Submission Submit manuscripts electronically through the Manuscript Submission Portal in Rich Text Format (.rtf) . All tables and figures should be included in the manuscript file.

Submission PortaJ Entranc

General correspondence may be directed to the Editor's Office. Mail Submission Submit manuscripts through the mail if Internet access is not available. Please submit one hard copy of the manuscript along with a complete disk copy (text, tables, and figures) to the Editor, Elizabeth A. Phelps, PhD Department of Psychology New York University 6 Washington Place Room 863 New York, NY 10003

All copies should be clear, readable, and on paper of good quality. The complete disk copy should include a clear notation of the file names and the word processing and graphics software used. Figures may submitted on a separate disk or on a Zip disk. Masked Review Policy Masked reviews are optional, and authors who wish masked reviews must specifically request them when they submit their manuscripts. For masked reviews, the manuscript must include a separate title page with the authors' names and affiliations, and these ought not to appear anywhere else in the manuscript. Footnotes that identify the authors must be


typed on a separate page. Authors are to make every effort to see that the manuscript itself contains no clues to their identities. Manuscript Submission Guidelines In addition to addresses and phone numbers, authors should supply electronic mail addresses and fax numbers for use by the editorial office and later by the production office. The majority of correspondence between the editorial office and authors is handled by email, so a valid e-mail address is important to the timely flow of communication during the editorial process.

Authors should provide electronic mail addresses in their cover letters and should keep a copy of the manuscript to guard against loss. Manuscripts are not returned. Manuscripts for Emotion can vary in length; typically they will range from 15 to 40 doublespaced manuscript pages. Manuscripts should be of sufficient length to ensure theoretical an9 methodological competence.

Most of the articles published in Emotion will be reports of original research, but other types of articles are acceptable.

Case studies from either a clinical setting or a laboratory will be considered if they raise or illustrate important questions that go beyond the single case and have heuristic value.

Articles that present or discuss theoretical perspectives on the basis of published data, may also be accepted.

Comprehensive reviews of the empirical literature in an area of study are acceptable if they contain a meta-analysis and/or present novel theoretical or methodological perspectives.

Comments on articles published in the journal will be considered.

Brief Reports Emotion also publishes brief reports. Manuscripts submitted as Brief Reports should not exceed 3,400 words, exclusive of references and figure captions. There should be no more than 2 figures or tables and no more than 30 references.

Theoretical Notes Emotion publishes articles that make important theoretical contributions to research areas that are of major importance for the study of emotion and affect. Preference is given to manuscripts that advance theory by integrating prior work and by suggesting concrete avenues for the empirical investigation of the theoretical predictions. Extensive, systematic evaluation of alternative theories is expected.

Manuscripts devoted to surveys ofthe literature are acceptable only ifthey can be considered as a major contribution to the field, documenting cumulative evidence and highlighting central theoretical and/or methodological issues of scientific debate. Emotion also publishes, as Theoretical Notes, commentary that contributes to progress in a given subfield of emotion or affect. Such notes include, but are not limited to, discussions of alternative theoretical approaches, and metatheoretical commentary on theory testing and related topics.


Manuscripts submitted as Theoretical Notes should not exceed 5,000 words (exclusive of references). There should be no more than 50 references. APA Journals Manuscript Submission Instructions For All Authors The following instructions pertain to all journals published by APA and the Educational Publishing Foundation (EPF). Please also visit the web page for the journal to which you plan to submit your article for submission addresses, journal-specific instructions and exceptions. Manuscript Preparation

Prepare manuscripts according to the Publication Manual o[the American Psychological Association (5th edition). Manuscripts may be copyedited for bias-free language (see Chapter 2 of the Publication Manual).

D9uble-space all copy. Other formatting instructions, as well as instructions on preparing tables, figures, references, metrics, and abstracts appear in the Manual. If your manuscript was mask reviewed, please ensure that the final version for production includes a byline and full author note for typesetting.

Review APA's Checklist for Manuscript Submission before submitting your article. Submitting Supplemental Materials

APA can now place supplementary materials online, available via the published article in the PsycARTICLES database. Please see~~~~~~~~~~....!.:!_~~~~ Material for more details.

Abstract and Keywords All manuscripts must include an abstract containing a maximum of 180 words typed on a separate page. After the abstract, please supply up to five keywords or brief phrases.

References List references in alphabetical order. Each listed reference should be cited in text, and each text citation should be listed in the References section.

Examples of basic reference formats: Journal Article: Fullagar, C. (1986). A factor analytic study on the validity of a union commitment scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 129-136. Authored Book: Mitchell, T. R., & Larson, J. R., Jr. (1987). People in organizations: An introduction to organizational behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Chapter in an Edited Book: Bjork, R. A. (1989). Retrieval inhibition as an adaptive mechanism in human memory. In H. L. Roediger III & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties of memory & consciousness (pp. 309-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Figures

Graphics files are welcome if supplied as Tiff, EPS, or Power Point files. The minimum line weight for line art is 0.5 point for optimal printing. When possible, please place symbol legends below the figure instead of to the side.


Original color figures can be printed in color at the editor's and publisher's discretion provided the author agrees to pay $255 for one figure $425 for two figures $575 for three figures $675 for four figures $55 for each additional figure

Permissions Authors of accepted papers must obtain and provide to the editor on final acceptance all necessary permissions to reproduce in print and electronic form any copyrighted work, including, for example, test materials (or portions thereof) and photographs of people. ~ Download Permissions Alert Form (PDF: 46KB)

Publication Policies APA policy prohibits an author from submitting the same manuscript for concurrent consideration by two or more publications.

See also AP A's policy regarding "---"-="=-'~==-'"-'-'-=~=c=-::· AP A requires authors to reveal any possible conflict of interest in the conduct and reporting of research (e.g., financial interests in a test or procedure, funding by pharmaceutical companies for drug research).

• Download Disclosure of Interests Form (PDF: 58KB) Authors of accepted manuscripts are required to transfer the copyright to AP A. ~ Download Publication Rights (Copyright Transfer) Form (PDF: 48KB)

Ethical Principles It is a violation of APA Ethical Principles to publish "as original data, data that have been previously published" (Standard 8.13).

In addition, AP A Ethical Principles specify that "after research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and unless legal rights concerning proprietary data preclude their release" (Standard 8.14).

APA expects authors to adhere to these standards. Specifically, AP A expects authors to have their data available throughout the editorial review process and for at least 5 years after the date of publication.

Authors are required to state in writing that they have complied with AP A ethical standards in the treatment of their sample, human or animal, or to describe the details of treatment. 1> Download Certification of Compliance With APA Ethical Principles Form (PDF: 24KB)

The APA Ethics Office provides the full Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct electronically on their web site in HTML, PDF, and Word format. You may also request a copy by writing to the APA Ethics Office, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC


20002-4242 (or see "Ethical Principles," December 1992, American Psychologist, Vol. 47, pp. 1597-1611).

Other Information


Running head: ANGER EXPERIENCE AND EXPRESSION

(Report)

The Role of Sex, Gender Role, and Extraversion-Introversion


James Oliver





Abstract Anger is a frequently experienced emotion that has been shown to influence perceptions, beliefs, ideas, reasoning, and ultimately choices and actions. It has the potential to become a serious problem if it reaches dysfunctional levels. This study examines the role of biological sex, gender role, and extraversion-introversion in the expression, experience and control of anger. A sample of 110 persons drawn from the Australian community were administered the Staxi-2, EPQ-R and the BSRI. Results showed that extraversionintroversion accounted for most variance associated with anger expression, while gender role accounted for most variance associated with anger control. Biological sex was not significant in accounting for anger variance. This research has highlighted factors that correlate with different aspects of anger, and provides for a better understanding of anger as both an emotional and socially constructed force. The results are consistent with the view that biological factors probably best explain the expression of anger, but that socially constructed factors such as gender role may best explain the control of anger. Sustained research in this area will provide for improved understanding of how biological and social determinants interact in the expression and control of anger.

James Oliver Dr Ken Robinson

May 2008




Introduction

Biological, psychological and social forces intertwine with emotions to shape

human behaviour (Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall, & Zhang, 2007). Their influence is not hard

to understand given that emotions are frequently experienced (Averil, 1982), as

demonstrated by Myrtek, Zanda, and Aschenbrenner (200 1) who have shown that women

felt an emotion about 40 percent of the time and men about 30 percent of the time on a

daily basis.

Some emotions, such as anger are experienced and exhibited frequently (Scherer,

Wranik, Sangsue, Tran, & Scherer 2004). Anger, defined as an internal state with

emotional/experiential, physiological, cognitive, and behavioural components, is one such

emotion that has consistently been shown to be a common experience (Averil, 1982;

Eckhardt & Deffenbacher, 1995; Scherer et al., 2004). Anger has been shown to be second

only to happiness as the most experienced affective state (Myrtek et al., 2001; Scherer et

al., 2004).

While emotions such as anger provide some of the most powerful positive and

negative affects a human can experience, there is still much controversy over what

emotions and their purposes are (Baumeister et al., 2007; Bower & Forgas, 2000;

Buchanan, 2007; Scherer, 2000). This controversy and the existence of multiple theories

that attempt to explain the wide range of phenomena associated with emotions contributes

to the present limited understanding of emotions, and leaves anger expression and

experience as a segmented and partly explained phenomenon (Bean, 2005; Davis, 2004;

Del Vecchio, & O'Leary, 2004; Robbins, 2000; Wranik, 2004).


It is an influential emotion that can foster confidence and action, yet if unregulated

or poorly managed can lead to psychological, physical and core relationship problems

(Derryberry & Tucker, 1994; Hansen & Hansen, 1988; Solomon, 1990). Dysfunctional

anger may lead to violence or other negative behaviours and is often considered necessary

to manage (Del Vecchio & O'Leary, 2004; Lerner & Tiedens, 2006; Novaco: 2007).

From a biological perspective, anger can be linked to states of arousal that include

activation of the general sympathetic system and hormone/neurotransmitter functions

(Buss, 2004). It has been proposed that the function of anger is to provide information to

self and others in the form of incentives or deterrents and act as a guide to one's and others

behaviour (Buchanan, 2007; Peters, 2006; Van Kleef, & Co~te', 2007). In addition, anger

can be a short lived emotional state arising from cognitive, somatic and environmental

antecedents, or it can be a mood which is a longer more enduring state that often has no

identifiable antecedent associated with it (Bower & Forgas, 2000; Buchanan, 2007;

Scherer, 2000).

MacLean's (1973) controversial concept of the triune brain provides one of several

frameworks for exploring and understanding anger expression experience and control.

MacLean argues an evolutionary position in that new brain capacities are developed by

building on existing neural structures and not from scratch. Under this concept, the human

brain currently has three different layers of neural anatomy. The oldest brain structure is the

brain stem and cerebellum and this structure maintains basic physiological functions. The

second neural layer that evolved and encompasses the first layer consists of the limbic

system that also includes the amygdala, which is crucial in registering incoming emotional

stimuli and storing emotional memories. The last and most recent neural layer is the

neocortex that consists of an outer layer of grey matter mostly considered to be given over

to the conscious processing of sensory stimuli.


MacLean (1973) further proposes, ignoring the first layer which is concerned with

autonomic functions, that humans have both an emotional (limbic) and rational (prefrontal

cortex) brain. These two structures work together in parallel and are linked by neural

pathways to form a dynamic and interactive system where information moves in both

directions between the two. Hence, the link between emotion and cognition is highly

interactive. Under this concept each brain structure produces different perceptions and

memory. In addition, not only do unconscious emotional feelings exist independent of

' rational appraisals but given the significant number of neural connections running from the

limbic system to the cortex it is possible that strong emotional impulses may override

rational cognition (Fishbane, 2007; Labar, Gatenby, Gore, LeDoux, & Phelps, 1998).

Laboratory studies show that the amygdala component of the limbic system receives

incoming information prior to the prefrontal cortex and therefore physiological arousal is

potentially activated to noticeable levels prior to information processing by the rational

brain (Labar et al., 1998; Myrtek et al., 2001).

Although MacLean's (1973) original concept has since been modified by others

(e.g. Cory, 2002; Pribram, 1981), similar concepts have emerged in the neuroimaging

literature (Cox & Harrison, 2008; Hewig, Hageman, Seifert, Nauman, & Bartussek, 2004;

Labar et al., 1998). Findings from research have continued to reveal more about how the

limbic system structures and the cortex are involved in behavioural choices. For example, a

model of anterior asymmetry and emotion based on approach and withdrawal proposes two

distinct brain systems are involved in behavioural regulation (Hewig et al., 2004). These

systems for approach behaviour include the left dorsolateral, prefrontal cortex and the basal

ganglia and withdrawal system includes the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the right

temporal polar region, the amygdala, the basal ganglia and the hypothalamus (Hewig, et

al.). Cox and Harrison (2008), in examining anger from a psychophysiology,

Anger Experience and Expression 4 7

neuropsychology and cognitive behavioural perspective, claim their research and

neuroimaging studies show anger is a multifaceted construct subserved by complex systems

of subcortical and cortical structures.

Furthermore, the literature shows that activation of cortical structures commence

both emotional arousal and rational behaviour processes that drive learning and response

behaviours, and result in the experiencing of affect (Labar et al., 1998). While the amygdala

seems to activate for perceived threat, along with other cortical structures comprising the

cortex, it has been shown that both an intact amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex

are necessary for effective goal directed behaviour (Labar et al. 1998; Bechara, Demasio,

Damassio, & Lee, 1999).

Animal studies, including those using disconnection, demonstrate that motivational

significance is encoded in the amygdala and then transferred to the prefrontal cortex for

control of action, and that both motivational choice and appropriate social behaviour is

guided by the effective interaction between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex (Baxter,

Parker, Linder, Izquierdo, & Murray, 2000; Rolls, 1999; Schoenbaum, Chiba, & Gallagher,

1998). Studies in cat and rats show that the amygdala is involved in the actual expression

and not solely acquisition of negative emotions (Schoenbaum, et al. 1998; Phelps,

O'Connor, Gatenby, Grillon, & Davis, 2001).

Experiments where participants believed they could control an anger inducing event

by Harmon-Jones, Sigelman, Bohlig, and Harmon-Jones (2003) and manipulation of

approach and avoidance imagination paradigms by Wacker, Heldmann, and Stemmler

(2003) produced greater left frontal cortical activity suggesting anger expression is

mediated by this region. Hewig et al. (2004) confirmed these findings, and further found

that anger control is associated with right frontal cortical activity.


Therefore the concepts and data emerging from research make possible the view

that brain structures have both specific and shared functions, operate in parallel but are also

interactive and co-operative. Research on anger shows many brain areas are activated

during an anger experience. In addition and importantly, limbic systems that interface with

the left prefrontal cortex appear to have emotional roles that strongly determine expression

while structures such as the right prefrontal cortex appear to have a role in control.

Biological based personality research using extraversion and introversion has found

that this factor is associated with anger expression and experience. The extraversion

introversion personality dimension of Eysenck' s ( 1967) is biological, and based on cortical

arousal which is associated with the limbic system. According to Eysenck, introverts are

cortically over-aroused and this causes them to be more restrained and inhibited and to seek

non-arousing social situations with the goal to reduce external stimulation. Extraverts on

the other hand have a state of lower internal arousal that causes them to manifest

unrestrained and impulsive behaviours, and to seek highly arousing social situations to

maximise external stimulation. Therefore, extraversion and introversion personality type

behaviour is focussed on maintaining an appropriate level of arousal (Bullock & Gilliland,

1993).

Eysenck (1967) identified the ascending reticular activating system as the brain area

responsible for differences in arousal between extraverts and introverts. Eysenck' s

biological basis of personality is often contrasted to Gray's (1971, 1981) Behavioural

Inhibition System associated with withdrawal or behaviour inhibition and introversion, and

the Behavioural Activation System that is associated with activation of approach

behaviours and extraversion (Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991). Gray originally referred to his

theory as a modernisation ofEysenck's theory.


Bo''ddeker and Stemmler (2000) have found that studies assessing the relationship

of the personality trait of extraversion to emotional anger experience have yielded

consistent results. Their work has shown that extraversion is associated with greater anger

expression, lower anger control and less reactivity to negative emotion while introversion is

associated with strong emotional reactions to anger including high anger expression and a

high internal anger experience (Bo"ddeker & Stemmler, 2000). It has also been shown that

extraverts experience more positive emotions than introverts (Mischel, Shoda, & Smith,

2004), and in relation to anger experience and expression, extraverts express anger due to

their need for social dominance, and have lower anger control (Bo"ddeker & Stemmler,

2000).

Another way to understand anger is from the most fundamental of human

motivations where the goal is to minimize danger and threat, and to maximize pleasure

(Gordon, 2000). Adopting this valence approach allows anger to be understood from a

motivational perspective and allow the action of anger to be interpreted in terms of situated

meaning and recognise it as a functional relationship between an individual and their

environment (Witherington & Crichton, 2007). Support for anger as a motivational based

force comes from neuro-imaging studies such as those ofHewig et al., (2004) who tested

three constructs, affective valence, motivational direction and behavioural activation and

inhibition. That study in examining frontal cortical asymmetry and anger out versus anger

control found behavioural activation is related to approach and withdrawal motivation.

While extraversion-introversion and motivation appear to be factors in anger,

behaviours are also learned and reinforced as part of socialisation (Bern, 197 4; Bo"ddeker

& Stemmler, 2000; Cox & Harrison, 2008). The learned socialisation effects on anger have

been considerably studied with respect to the role of sex and gender role. Biological based

sex differences have been well researched, and the use of meta-analytic studies such as


Maccoby and Jacklin's (1974) watershed study of over 2000 research reports, and more

recently an analysis of 46 meta-analyses by Hyde (2005), have consolidated findings.

Anger research from a biological perspective shows that there are more similarities than

differences in anger expression or experience between males and females (Hyde, 2005).

Hyde has proposed a gender similarities hypothesis that proposes males and females are

similar on most, but not all, psychological variables. The small and often non significant

differences found may be due to the heterogeneity accompanying broad groupings such as

' females and males (Newman, Fuqua, Gray, & Simpson., 2006).

Gender role has been proposed to explain anger expression and variance. Gender

schema theory was first proposed by Bern (1974) and the original masculine and feminine

roles was further expanded by Taylor and Hall (1981) to include androgynous and

undifferentiated roles. Bern's theory combines aspects of social learning and cognitive-

development, and asserts that a person is socialised into gender specific roles from

childhood, and that these roles tell a person how they must behave and manifest by

directing their behaviour at the social level. These internalised socialisation experiences

consolidate to direct behaviour and causes a person to act in culturally approved and gender

stereotypic ways (Bern, 1984; Saucier, McCreary, & Saxberg, 2002).

Recent research by Alia-Klein, Goldstein, Tomasi, Zhang, and Fagin-Jones, (2007)

links social conditioning and subsequent emotion regulation based on this conditioning to

the prefrontal cortex and in particular the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). Their study used the

words yes and no. These words have been universally linked to social conditioning, are

used by both the individual and others as reinforcement, and are considered common but

powerful feedback words. The OFC has been shown in other research to be the receiver of

multimodal valence information as well as memory for previous punishment and reward

associations (Zald & Rauch, 2006) and for signalling boundaries for accepting or rejecting


a choice of action (Elliot, Newman, Longe, & Deakin, 2003). Therefore, it may be

concluded that social conditioning and socially conditioned behavioural choices are

managed through structures in the prefrontal cortex.

Older studies by Kopper (1993), Kopper and Epperson (1991, 1996) and more

recently by Milovchevich, Howell, Drew, & Day (2000) explored whether gender role

provided a better predictor of the patterns of anger experience and expression than

biologically determined sex. The combined findings suggested that gender role was a better

' predictor of anger than sex. Masculine gender role types showed more proneness to anger

and to express anger outwardly and less likely to suppress or control anger expression. In

contrast, feminine gender role types were least likely to express anger, more likely to

suppress anger and control anger expression.

Despite the recent research developments, few studies appear to have explicitly or

fully examined whether anger expression and control is socially and I or biologically

mediated. Hence, while biological sex does not appear to be a significant factor in

accounting for anger expression and experience, it does seem that socially constructed

gender role and the biologically based personality dimension of extraversion-introversion

together account for anger variance. The question naturally arises as to how these two

dimensions would account for more of the variance in anger expression, experience, and

control.

A useful tool to measure the expression and control of anger has been available in

the form of the Staxi-2 (Spielberger, 1999). Given that extraversion-introversion may be

easily measured, and that gender role may also be measured, the use of all three

operationalised measures provides the opportunity to examine how they may interact in

determining anger expression, experience and its control.


The purpose of this paper is therefore to examine the ability of biological sex,

gender role and extraversion-introversion to explain the variance in anger expression,

experience and control in a normal population drawn from the Australian community. The

research question of this study is whether the reported experience, expression and control of

anger of a person may be better explained by sex, gender role or by the personality

dimension of extraversion-introversion?

Method

Re'search Design

This study uses a within-subjects correlation research design. Correlation research

attempts to determine whether or not two or more variables are related in some way.

Although correlation research does not determine causality between variables, it does show

ifthere may be a relationship between them.

Self reported anger was the dependent variable and participant sex, gender role and

extraversion were the independent variables. The dependent variable of anger had 4 levels,

anger expression out (AX-0), anger expression in (AX-I), anger control out (AC-0) and

anger control in (AC-I). Characteristics of the independent variables were as follows:

participant sex, male and female; gender role was measured on four levels, masculine,

feminine, androgenous, and undifferentiated; and introversion-extraversion had two levels,

introversion and extraversion.

Participants

The study involved 110 participants ranging from 18 to 75 years of age

(M= 40.8 years, SD = 13.4 years) sampled from the Perth Metropolitan and City of

Bun bury areas of Western Australia. The Western Australian comparison average age is

36.4 years (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007). There were 63 females ranging from 18


to 68 years (M = 41.6, SD = 13.4) and 4 7 males ranging from 18 to 7 5 years of age (M =

39.7, SD = 14.4).

Sample Size

Sample size was determined using recommendations by Green (1991) who

researched differing justifications for multiple regression sample size based on power

analysis. The sample size of this study was determined on the assumption that a medium

effect would be found and after applying Green's formula a sample size of 110 participants

was determined.

Procedure

After receiving ethics approval for the study from the Ethics Committee of the

Faculty of Computing, Health and Science of Edith Cowan University, questionnaires

were distributed to participants. Participants had to be Australian citizens or hold

permanent Australian resident status. Recruitment of participants involved directly

approaching individuals or groups of people the researcher was familiar with, and

requesting these persons to complete a set of questionnaires. Persons approached were also

requested to nominate others who could also be approached to seek participation and these

nominated persons were then contacted to complete the set of questionnaires. Of 17

participants who refused to participate, 14 were males and three were females.

Demographic Data Sheet

A demographic data sheet collected Information on year of birth, sex, marital status,

country of birth, residency status and occupation (Appendix B).

Instruments

Instruments for the study included the Spielberger State-Trait Anger Expression

Inventory-2, the Eysenck Personality Scales and the BEM Sex Role Inventory (Appendix

B).


The Spielberger State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (ST AXI -2)

The Spielberger (1999) State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 is a widely used

57 item self report measure of state and trait anger. The STAXI-2 has six scales, five sub

scales and an anger expression index. State anger measures current feelings and intensity of

anger at a particular moment in time. Trait anger measures a trait disposition to experience

and frequency of angry feelings. Anger Expression-Out measures the degree to which an

individual expresses anger outwardly either verbally or physically, while Anger

E:ipression-In measures the suppression of angry feelings. Anger Control-Out measures the

prevention of the expression of anger outwardly towards others, while Anger Control-In

measures the degree to which angry feelings are controlled internally. In the current study

while participants completed all the scales the State and Trait Anger scales were not used.

All scale items are rated on a four-point scale of 1 to 4. The inventory has been shown to

have high internal consistency (Fuqua et al., 1991) and discriminative validity

(Defenbacher et al., 1996).

The Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI)

The BSRI comprises 60 stereotypical personality characteristics, 20 feminine, 20

masculine and 20 filler items that are scored using a 7 -point scale to record the degree to

which participants believe are characteristic that describe themselves (Bern, 1981). The

scale shows good reliability and internal consistency ranging from .90 to .93 and from .80

to .86, respectively (Renk et al., 2003).

Adult Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-R)

The EPQ-R is a 106 item self-report questionnaire measuring three key dimensions

of personality: extroversion-introversion (E), neuroticism or emotionality (N), psychoticism

or tough-mindedness (P) and a lie scale (L) is also included (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991).

Responses are in a yes/no format. While participants completed the entire EPQ-R


questionnaire only the Extraversion-Introversion scale was used for this study. The EPQ-R

has been shown to have satisfactory internal consistency and reliability (Ortet, Ibanex,

Moro, Silva, & Boyle; 1999).

Procedure

The information sheet, informed consent form, demographic data sheet, Staxi-2,

IVE, EPQ-R and BSRI were assembled into a package that could be given to participants.

Participants were advised that the instruments should be completed as quickly as possible

but no time limit was set. Those who agreed to participate were handed one of the test

packages. For those unable to complete it at the time of approach, a time was arranged for it

to be returned to or be collected by the researcher. As no participant reported experiencing

any adverse consequence from participation or in completing the prepared package, no

debriefing was conducted. This action was approved by the Ethics Committee.

Results

Data Processing and Screening

Data was analysed using SPSS Graduate Pack 15 student version release 15.0.0.

for windows (SPSS, Chicago, IL). SPSS output data relevant to the analysis can be found at

Appendix C. No data was missing and no questionnaires were discarded. Anger expression

out (AX-0) was negatively skewed, platykurtic and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov with

Lilliefors significance correction (K-S) statistic was D(110) = .07,p > .05. Anger

expression in (AX-I) was negatively skewed, leptokurtic and the K-S statistic was D(11 0) =

.08,p > .05. Anger control out (AC-0) was negatively skewed, platykurtic and the K-S

statistic was D(110) = .06,p > .05. Anger control in (AC-I) was negatively skewed,

platykurtic and the K-S statistic was D(110) = .06,p > .05. The data screening showed that

AX-0 and AXI had one univariate outlier each. As both scores for AX-0 (z = +3.02,p <


. 05) and AX -I (z = + 3.13, p < . 05) did not exceed z = 3.29 the original scores were retained

for use in the analysis.

Bivariate Correlations

Bivariate correlations (Pearson's r in all cases) were computed to determine

whether relationships were present between the independent variables (sex, gender role,

extraversion-introversion), and the dependent variables (AX-0, AX-I, AC-0 and AC-I).

Scatter plots using the BEM Sex Role Inventory standard score for gender role and the

E~traversion-introversion raw scores were analysed to test assumptions of normality,

linearity and homoscedacity for each significant correlation. Examination of scatter plots

did not suggest these conventional statistics assumptions had been violated. Table 1

presents correlations for all variables.

Table 1

Inter-correlations Among Variables

Sex Sex Gender Role .172 Extraversion-Introversion .039 Anger Expression Out -.008 Anger Expression In -.072 Anger Control Out .115 Anger Control In .036

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Gender Role

.149

.074

.013 -.190(*)

-.233(**)

Extraversion Introversion

1 -.285(**) .318(**)

.141

.123

Table 1 shows that sex did not correlate highly with any of the dependent variables.

Significant negative correlation was found between gender role and AC-0 (r = -.190, p <

.05) and ACI (r = -.245,p < .01). Extraversion-introversion was significant and negatively

correlated with AX-0 (r = -.285,p < 01), and significant and positively correlated with

AX-I (r= .318,p, <.01).


Multiple Regression Analysis

Multiple regressions were used to determine the variance explained by the

independent variables for anger expression and control. Inspection of scatter plots,

collinearity and Mahalanobis distance statistics showed no multivariate outliers and also

that assumptions of normality, linearity, homoscedacity and independence of residuals were

met. The enter method of analysis was used to determine the total variance explained by all

independent variables, which operates to find the optimum entry order of predictor

variables. Three analyses were performed. In the first analysis all independent variables

were entered as one group in the first instance to explore the total variance accounted for as

a single model. Next and based on the correlation results, only the significant variables of

gender role and extraversion-introversion were entered into the model. In the final analysis,

only the variable shown to be significant to the relevant level of the dependent variable was

entered. Multiple regression results are reported in Table 2.

Table 2

Regression Coefficients From Enter Method Regression Analyses

Variable Coefficients

~ SE ~ Beta T Sig. R R2

AXO Constant 17.80 1.42 Sex -.14 .79 -.017 -.18 .857 .000 -.009 Gender Role .45 .35 .122 1.28 .202 .006 -.013 Extraversion-Introversion -2.5 .78 -.30 -3.2 .002 .096 .070

AXI Constant 12.91 1.368 Sex -.668 .763 -.08 -.87 .383 .005 -.004 Gender Role -.075 .338 -.02 -.22 .824 .006 -.013 Extraversion-Introversion 2.647 .756 .32 3.50 .001 .109 .084

ACO Constant 22.82 1.84 Sex 1.63 1.03 .14 1.58 .116 .004 .013 Gender Role -1.15 .45 -.24 -2.52 .013 .041 .058 Extraversion-Introversion 1.85 1.02 .17 1.81 .072 .061 .087

ACI Constant 23.38 1.90 Sex .77 1.06 .06 .72 .468 .001 -.009 Gender Role -1.38 .47 -.27 -2.93 .004 .065 .047 Extraversion-Introversion 1.69 1.05 .15 1.61 .110 .087 .061


As shown in Table 2, sex was not significant as a predictor variable in accounting

for anger variance for any of the dependent variables. Extraversion-introversion emerged as

significant in accounting for variance for AX-0 and AX-I, and gender role emerged as

significant in accounting for AC-0 and AC-I.

A second multiple regression eliminating non-significant variables was undertaken

to determine the variance accounted for by the independent variable in the dependent

variable. The results showed that for AX-0, the model was significantF(1,08) = 9.58,p <

.05, and that extraversion-introversion accounted for 8.1% (adjusted R2 = .073) of anger

variance. Similarly for AX-I, the model was significant, F(1,108) = 12.17,p < .05 and that

extraversion-introversion accounted for 10.1% (adjusted R2 = .093) of anger variance.

Gender role was significant for AC-0, F(1,108) = 4.023,p < .05 and accounted for 3.6%

(adjusted R2 = .027) of anger variance. Gender role was significant for AC-I, F(1,108) =

6.22,p < .05 and accounted for 5.4% (adjusted R2 = .046) ofvariance for ACI.

Comparison of mean scores

The next phase of the analysis considered the actual scores obtained for each of the

independent variables. Broadly, comparisons of mean scores indicated little difference in

reported anger expression or control existed between each level of the sex variable. As

might be expected from the previous analysis, differences emerged when comparing gender

role and personality variables and their levels.

Mean scores were analysed for each independent variable (see Table 3 below).

Each dependent variable had a score range of 8 to 32. The higher the individual score or

mean for each of the independent variables indicated greater outward or inward anger

expression, or greater outward and inward anger control, respectively.


Table 3

Mean scores and standard deviations for participants on independent variables

lnde12endent Variable AX-0 AX-I AC-0 AC-1 Sex Female 15.30 (3.68) 16.51(4.51) 22.56 (5.19) 22.22 (5.69) Male 15.23 (4.86) 15.91 (3.40) 23.81 (5.71) 22.62 (5.31)

Gender Role Androgenous 15.47 (4.26) 16.00 (4.25) 24.42 (5.04) 24.26 (5.58) Feminine 14.37 (3.28) 16.37 (3.54) 24.14 (4.79) 23.43 (4.48) Masculine 16.06 (5.70) 16.24 (3.28) 21.76 (7.00) 21.18 (6.13) Undifferentiated 15.64 (4.20) 16.28 (4.80) 22.08 (5.25) 21.08 (5.77)

Extraversion -Introversion Extraversion 16.34 (4.42) 15.10 (3.58) 22.41 (5.44) 21.79 (5.47) Introversion 13.94 (3.53) 17.69 (4.21) 23.94 (5.34) 23.14 (5.52)

Overall Mean Dependent Variable 15.27 (4.20) 16.25 (4.07) 23.09 (5.43) 22.45 (5.58) Note. Score range is 8 to 32.

Extraversion-Introversion

A number of means were analysed using t-tests with Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels

of .006 per test (.05/8). Independent t-tests showed significant differences between the means

of extraversion and introversion for AX-0, t(108) = 3.09,p < .003, r= .28 and for AX-I

t(108) = 3.48,p < .001, r = .31. Extraversion means were greater for AX-0 while means

for introversion were higher for AX-I. Hence, extraversion types reported more AX-0 and

less AX-I behaviours while the reverse applied to introversion types.

No significant differences were found between the extraversion means for AX-0

and AX-I, t(60) = 1.68,p > .098, r = .21 and this may indicate that extraversion types

report and/or express and experience anger at similar levels. Conversely, analysis of the

introversion dimension found a significant difference between the AX-0 and AX-I

introversion means, t( 48) = -6.1 0, p < .000, r = .66. As evidenced by the effect size, the

finding shows that for introversion types the reported expression outward of anger is

significantly less than the reported expression inward of anger.

Analysis using t-tests on mean scores for AC-0 and AC-I showed no significant

differences for extraversion or introversion. While extraversion and introversion mean


score comparisons appear similar in reported AC-0 behaviours and differ on reported AC-I

behaviours, no significant differences using t-tests were found either within or between

these variables.

Biological Sex

Inspection of mean scores showed little difference in anger expression or control

between females and males. Independent t-tests confirmed no significant difference

between sex for all anger expression and for anger control.

Gender Role

No significant differences were found between any of the sex-role types for AX-0,

AX-I, AC-0 or AC-I. The Female sex-role type had the lowest mean score for AX-0 and

male sex-role type had the highest. Female types therefore reported fewer AX-0

behaviours and male types reported more AX-0 behaviour, although this was not

significant using independent group t-test. Androgenous and undifferentiated sex-role types

appeared similar in reported AX-0 behaviour, as there were no significant differences. No

significant differences from analysis with independent t-test were found for any gender role

type in the AC-I means.

Male types had the lowest mean score for AC-0 while androgenous types had the

highest mean scores but analysis with independent t-test shows no significant difference,

AC-0, t(34) = -1.31,p > .197, r = .21. Male and undifferentiated type means for AC-I

were lower than that for androgenous and female types, but no significant differences were

found t(56) = -1.99,p > .051, r = .25.

Discussion

This study examined the role of sex, gender role, and extraversion-introversion in

explaining the expression, experience and control of anger. Given the limited predictor set

obtained in the study, the personality dimension of extraversion-introversion best explains


the expression of anger, while the socially constructed or learned gender role types best

explains the control of anger. Biological sex did not emerge as a significant factor in

explaining the experience, expression and control of anger.

Arousal as measured by extraversion-introversion has been shown to account for

anger expression. Gender role was shown to be a significant factor in outward and inward

control of anger and that expression and experience was similar for each gender role type,

as might be expected from the literature on learned socialisation (Hyde, 2005; Kopper,

19~)3; Kopper & Epperson, 1991,1996; Milovchevich et al., 2000). The results ofthe study

support the extant literature that there are few differences on psychological variables for

biological sex types of male and female. Furthermore the results appear to lend support to

Hyde's (2005) gender similarities hypothesis that proposes that males and females are

similar on most, but not all, psychological variables.

The literature shows that extraversion is associated with greater anger expression

and lower anger control, and that introversion is associated with strong emotional reactions

to anger including high anger expression and a high internal anger experience (Bo"ddeker

& Stemmler, 2000). This study while supporting the literature shows that extraversion is

associated with greater anger expression than introversion and that extraversion

introversion is a greater factor than gender role in accounting for the variance in the

outward expression and inward experience of anger.

Note that both applied use and research on extraversion-introversion place

importance on the bipolar nature of introversion and extraversion, and the associated

measures of low and high scores that are used to determine labels. It is possible that

measures oflevels of arousal might be more appropriate (Bienvenu et al., 2007; Pelegrina,

Beltran, & Gimenez, 2007). Such an approach integrates the past work ofEysenck with

current physiological and behaviour research, and considers introversion-extraversion as


arousal. Arousal seems appropriate as a measure given the results obtained in this study.

Extraversion may therefore be redefined as low arousal and high anger expression, while

introversion redefined as high arousal and low anger expression.

Acceptance of the key role of arousal is probably critical to improved

understanding of anger, as what is required is a framework for exploration based on cortical

activation and parallel or co-operative brain systems linked by neural pathways. These

pathways consist of emotional and automatic and rational processes working co-operatively

' to assess and respond to information based on levels of cortical activation which is

synonymous with arousal. The results of this study link emotional expression and

experience to the dimension of extraversion and introversion which is according to Eysenck

(1967) associated with the limbic system.

The results show systematic differences in terms of the outward expression and

inward experience of anger when considering extraversion-introversion. The means for

extraversion show that anger outward and inward may be experienced at similar levels to

each other. Therefore the manifestation of and intensity of anger expression and experience

in the form of behaviour and feelings may be analogous to each other. For introverts, the

intensity of anger expression and experience in the form of behaviour and feelings are

different. This difference seems to be that the intensity of anger experience in the form of

arousal or feelings may be different to anger expression. In keeping with the literature,

introversion is therefore associated with less anger expression but greater anger inwards

experience. It is suggested that these differences may be a result of individual perceptions,

how one takes in information, as well as memories of past experiences associated with

outcomes (Clack, Allen, Cooper, & O'Head, 2004).

The results of this study have also indicated a direction for understanding gender

role, which was found to be linked to anger control. This is a deliberate conscious cognitive


process which is associated with the right frontal cortex and behaviour regulation or

control. Therefore, we may begin to understand anger within a framework that accepts that

different emotional and rational brain areas co-operate to form systems but that one or the

other may dominate at different moments in time and that these drive how anger is

expressed, experienced and controlled.

As shown by the literature reviewed in this study learned socialisation is an

important determinant of behaviour, especially behaviour control. While gender role was

I

not shown to be a significant factor in either the outward expression or inward experience

of anger, it was shown to be a significant factor in the outward and inward control of anger.

The extant literature shows gender role has a consistent relationship for anger proneness,

suppression, and control and the tendency to express anger outwardly (Kopper, 1993).

Furthermore, the masculine gender role types show more proneness to anger and outward

expression of anger and are less likely to suppress or control anger expression. In contrast,

feminine gender role types were less likely to express anger, more likely to suppress anger

and control anger expression (Kopper, 1993). The results of this study differ from that of

the literature perhaps because of the type of analysis or sample size. This study found that

there were no differences between gender role types in the outward control of anger where

anger is prevented from manifesting or in the inward control of anger where anger affect is

reduced. Therefore, it could be concluded that differences in the outward and inward

control of anger between gender roles are minor. Furthermore, the results indicated that

each gender role is similar in the way anger is monitored and prevented from externalising

and the affect from the anger causing event is reduced.

Alternatively, the similarities or non significant differences found in this study may

simply indicate that the survey was not sensitive enough to measure gender role

differences. In comparison to other studies ofthe effect size found, Kopper (1993) for


example found that for Type A behaviour, sex, gender role and anger out, R2 = .0884; anger

in, R2 = .0996; and anger control, R2 = .0680.

In summary, the results of the present study show that the role of sex in explaining

the experience and expression of anger is not significant and that anger expression and

experience is more similar than different between biologically determined sex types.

Furthermore the study shows that the expression and experience of anger appears to be

similar for both male and female biological sex types consistent with Hyde (200 1 ).

The strength of the study is that it has contributed to an area of limited research

when compared to other psychological dimensions of interest in the field of emotion. The

current study, however, is limited to arousal as measured by extraversion-introversion and

learned socialisation as measured by gender role. Furthermore, the results show that

extraversion-introversion and gender role explain only comparatively low levels of

explained variance. This indicates that other factors must also be involved and the

challenge is to define and find these factors.

The present research may be original in the comparison of the three variables, sex,

gender role and extraversion-introversion. While each variable has been examined in the

literature to varying degrees and biological sex and gender role compared there has been no

studies exploring the three variables together. More specifically, no studies have been

found that address both factors of extraversion-introversion and gender role that from this

study appear to provide some explanation of the role of biological personality dimensions

and socialisation. This study will assist to provide some common foundation possibly

across competing psychological disciplines and this may lead to improved understanding of

the emotion of anger.

The use of a population drawn from the Australian community rather than from

university populations is a significant factor that will allow generalising of results.


However, a weakness of the study may be that the sample size was too small to adequately

study anger in a normal population where the effect size may be small rather than medium

which was expected for this study. Furthermore, the study was based on self reports where

responses may be over or understated, subject to response style (acquiescence, deviation,

social desirability), and so on. Moreover, the effects of selection bias must be considered,

and only people who were comfortable with participating or who were motivated to

participate may have participated. Selection bias in future studies may be overcome by

ad~ertising widely to ensure a larger sample is obtained when recruiting participants or in

the use of online survey methodology that may provide a greater sense of anonymity to

respondents.

Future Directions

As indicated previously data has been collected on the dimensions of neuroticism,

psychoticism and the impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy scales. Research should

continue to explore if these dimensions further assist to explain the variance in anger. In

addition it is suggested that once all the data collected from this study is analysed that this

study is undertaken but with a larger population also drawn from the Australian

community. This is suggested to ensure that the potential weakness in the study due to

small sample size is tested. Exploration may then also be extended to examine populations

drawn from clinical and other populations, where respondents are typified by their anger

expression and control. Such research may occur through the use of populations from anger

management groups or consolidation of individual case studies where gender and

personality has been assessed. As argued earlier these populations may demonstrate

emotional and or social dominance characteristics thus allowing exploration of anger and

extreme behaviours that may be valuable in furthering the understanding of dysfunctional

anger.


The most obvious direction for future study is the exploration of the interaction of

biological and socially constructed person variables such as extraversion-introversion and

gender role. This study shows that the personality dimension of extraversion-introversion is

correlated with outward and inward expression and experience of anger and that gender

role is correlated with outward and inward control. Intuitively, one could conclude that

these interact to determine of the anger expression, experience and control phenomena.

Hence understanding how these two components work together is of importance.

Studies that develop scenarios that use brain imaging technologies could also be

explored. In particular, it may be possible to combine behavioural and brain imaging data

to further explore whether anger is a biological, socially constructed or an interaction of

both given that different brain areas activate for personality and cognitive processing.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current research examined whether the reported experience,

expression and control of anger of a person may be better explained by sex, gender role or

by the personality dimension of extraversion-introversion. The results have indicated for

this particular sample that anger expression outward and anger expression inward is better

accounted for by extraversion-introversion, while anger control outward and inward is

better accounted for by gender role. Introversion types were shown to be more affected by

the experience of anger than extraverts or of gender types.

The research findings, while small and exploratory, are significant, and are

consistent with a relationship between personality based biological and social factors and

the separate but interconnected brain systems (limbic and cortex) originally proposed by

MacLean (1973). Furthermore, biological sex may be too broad a category to be useful in

examining anger. Perhaps more importantly, the present work has highlighted that different

factors correlate with different aspects of anger. Confirmation and further identification of


these correlations may be beneficial in gaining a clearer understanding of how anger works.

The findings of this study may therefore be valuable in the determining of future research

directions and subsequent development of more comprehensive and useful anger constructs

and theories.


References

Alia-Klein, N., Goldstein, R.Z., Tomasi, D, Zhang, L., & Fagin-Jones, S. (2007). What Is in a Word? No Versus Yes Differentially Engage the Lateral Obitofrontal Cortex. Emotion, 7, 649-659.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2007). Population by Age and Sex, Australian States and Territories, June 2007 (online). http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/.

Averill, J.A. (1982). Anger and Aggression: an essay on emotion. New York Springer-Verlag.

Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K. D. C., DeWall, N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How Emotion , Shapes Behavior: Feedback, Anticipation, and Reflection, Rather Than Direct

Causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, II, 167-203.

Baxter, M.G., Parker, A., Linder, C.C., Izquierdo, A.D., & Murray, (2000). Control of response selection by reinforcer value requires interaction of amygdala and orbital prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 4311-4319.

Bean, P. (2005). Unfolding the Mystery of Anger. Psychotherapy in Australia, II, 72-78.

Bechara, A., Demasio, H., Damassio, A.R., & Lee, G.P. (1999). Differential contributions of the human amygdala and ventro medial prefrontal cortex to decision making. Journal of Neuroscience, I9, 5473-5481.

Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Bern, S. L. (1981). Bern Sex Role Inventory. Professional Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Bern. S.L. (1984). Androgyny and gender schema theory: a conceptual and empirical integration. In T.B. Sonderegger, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 32, 179-226). Lincoln: University Nebraska Press.

Berkowitz, L., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2004). Toward an understanding of the determinants of anger. Emotion, 4: 107-130.

Bienvenu, OJ., Hettema, J.M., Neale, M.C. et al. (2007). Low extraversion and high neuroticism as indices of genetics and environmental risk for social phobia, agoraphobia, and animal phobia. American Journal Psychiatry. I64, 1714-1721.

Bo .. ddeker, I., & Stemmler, G. (2000). Who responds how and when to anger? The assessment of actual anger response styles and their relation to personality. Cognition and Emotion, I4, 737-762.

Boss, P. (2006). Resilience and health. Grief Matters, 9, 52-57.


Bower, G. H., & Forgas, J.P. (2000). Affect, memory, and social cognition. In E. Eich, J. F. Kihlstrom, G. H. Bower, J.P. Forgas, & P.M. Niedenthal (Eds.), Cognition and emotion (pp. 87-168). New York: Oxford University Press.

Buchanan, T.W. (2007). Retrieval of Emotional Memories. Psychological Bulletin, 133,761-779.

Bullock, W.A., & Gilliland, K. (1993). Eysenck's Arousal Theory of IntroversionExtraversion: A Converging Measures Investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 113-123.

Buss, A.H., (2004). Anger, Frustration, and Aversiveness. Emotion, 4, 131-132.

Clflck, G.B., Allen, J., Cooper, D., O'Head, J. (2004). Personality differences between doctors and their patients: implications for the teaching of communication skills. Medical Education 38, 177-186.

Cory, G.A. (2002). MacLean's Evolutionary Neuroscience, the CSN Model and Hamilton's Rule: Some Developmental, Clinical, and Social Policy Implications. Brain and Mind 3, 151-181.

Cox, D.E., & Harrison, D.W. (2008). Models of anger: Contributions from psychophysiology, neuropsychology and cognitive behavioural perspective. Brain Structure and Function, 212, 371-385.

Davis, D.N. (2004). Why do anything? Emotion, affect and the fitness function underlying behaviour and thought. Affective Computing, AISB 2004, University of Leeds, UK.

Defenbacher, J.L., Oetting, E.R., Thwaites, G.A., Lynch, R.S., Baker, D.A., Stark, R.S., & Eiswerth-Cox, L. (1996). Stait trait anger theory and the utility of the trait anger scale. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 43, 131-148.

Del Vecchio,T., & O'Leary, K.D. (2004). Effectiveness ofangertreatments for specific anger problems: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 15-34.

Derryberry, D., & Tucker, D. M. (1994). Motivating the focus of attention. In P.M. Niedenthal, & S. Kitayama (Eds.),The heart's eye: Emotional influences in perception and attention (pp. 167-196). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Eckhardt, C. I., & Deffenbacher, J. L. (1995). Diagnosis of anger disorders. In H. Kassinove (Ed.), Anger disorders: Definition, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 27-47). Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.

Elliot, R., Newman, J.L., Longe, O.A., & Deakin, J.F.W. (2003). Differential response patterns in the striatum and orbitofrontal cortex to financial reward in humans: a

parametric functional magnetic resonance imaging study, Journal Neuroscience. 23, 303-307.


Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B.G., (1991) Manual ofthe Eysenck Personality Scales. Hodder & Stoughton. London, United Kingdom.

Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS: And sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Fishbane, M. (2007). Wired to Connect: Neuroscience, Relationships, and Therapy. Family Process, 46, 395-412.

Fuqua, D.R., Leonard, E., Masters, M.A., Smith, R.J., Campbell, J.L., & Fischer; P.C. (1991). A structural analysis of the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory.

'Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 438-446.

Gordon, E. (2000) ed. "Integrative Neuroscience", Bringing Together Biological, Psychologicaland Clinical Models of the Human Brain, Harwood Academic Publishers.

Gray, J. A. (1971). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behavior Research and Therapy, 8, 249-266.

Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique ofEysenck's theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality (pp. 246-276). New York: Springer.

Green, S.B. (1991). How Many Subjects Does It Take To Do A Regression Analysis? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 499-510.

Hansen, C. H., & Hansen, R. D. (1988). Finding the face in the crowd: an anger superiority effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 917-924.

Harmon-Jones, E., & Sigelman, J. (2001). State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 80, 797-803.

Harmon-Jones, E., & Sigelman, J.D., Bohlig, A., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2003). Anger, coping and frontal cortical activity: the effect of coping potential on angerinduced left frontqal activity. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 1-24.

Hewig, J., Hagemann, D., Seifert, J., Naumann, E., & Bartussek, D. (2004). On the Selective Relation of Frontal Cortical Asymetry and Anger-Out Versus AngerControl. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 926-939.

Hyde, J.S. (2005). The Gender Similarities Hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581-592.


Kopper, B.A. (1993). Role of Gender, sex role identity and type A behaviour in anger expression and mental health functioning. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 40, 232-237.

Kopper, B. A., & Epperson,D.L. (1996). The Experience and Expression of Anger: Relationships with Gender, Gender Role Socialization, Depression, and Mental Health Functioning. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 43, 158-165.

Kopper, B.A. & Epperson, D.L (1991). Sex and sex role comparisons in the expression of anger. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 15, 7-14.

Kopper, B. A., & Epperson,D.L. (1996). The Experience and Expression of Anger: Relationships with Gender, Gender Role Socialization, Depression, and Mental Health Functioning. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 158-165.

Labar, K.S., Gatenby, J.C., Gore, J.C., LeDoux, J.E., & Phelps, E.A. (1998). Human Amygdala activation during conditioned fear acquisition and extinction: a mixed trial fMRi study. Neuron, 20, 937-945.

Larsen, R.J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and Susceptibility to Positive and Negative Emotional States. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 61, 132-140.

Lerner, J.S. & Tiedens, L.Z. (2006). Portrait of The Angry Decision Maker: How Appraisal Tendencies Shape Anger's Influence on Cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 115-137.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

MacLean, PD. (1973). A Triune Concept of the Brain and Behavior. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.

Milovchevich, D., Howell, K., Drew, N., & Day, A. (2000). Sex and Gender Role difference in Anger: An Australian Community Study. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 117-127.

Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Smith R.E. (2004). Introduction to Personality. (Seventh Edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Myrtek, M., Zanda, D., & Aschenbrenner, E. (2001). "Interactive psychophysiological Monitoring of Emotions in Students' Everyday Life. Replication Study'', in J. Fahrenberg and M. Myrtek (eds) Progress in

Ambulatory Assessment: Computer- Assisted Psychological and Psychophysiological Methods in Monitoring and Field Studies, (pp. 415-34). Kirkland, W A: Hogrefe and Huber.


Newman, J.L., Fuqua, D.L., Gray, E.A., & Simpson, D.B. (2006). Gender Differences in the relationship of Anger and Depression in a Clinical Sample. Journal of Counselling & Development, 84, 157-162.

Novaco, R. W (2007). Anger Dysregulation. IT. A. Cavell & K. T. Malcolm (Reds.), Anger, Aggression, andinterventions for Interpersonal Violence (pp. 3-57). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Ortet, G., Ibanex, M. I., Moro, M., Silva, F., & Boyle, G. J. (1999) Psychometric appraisal ofEysenck's revised Psychoticism scale: a cross-cultural study. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1209-1219.

Pelegrina, M., Beltran, F.S., & Gimenez, A. (2007). Sentences Recognition Memory and Extraversion-Introversion Levels: A Statistical Modelling Approach.

'Quality and Quantity, 41, 627-633.

Peters, E. (2006). The functions of affect in the constructionof preferences. In S. Lichtenstein & P. Slavic (Eds.), The construction of preference (pp. 454-463). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Phelps, E.A., O'Connor, K.J, Gatenby, J.C., Grillon, C., & Davis, M. (2001). Activation ofthe left amygdala to acognitive representation of fear. Natural Neuroscience, 4, 437-441.

Pribram, K., 1981: Emotions, in S.B. Fitskov, and T.J. Boll (eds), Handbook of Clinical Neuropsychology, Wiley, New York.

Renk, K., Roberts, R., Roddenberry, A., Luick, M., Hillhouse, S., Meehan, C., Oliveros, A., & Phares, V. (2003). Mothers, Fathers, Gender Role, and Time Parents Spend With Their Children. Sex Roles, 48, 305-315.

Robbins, PR (2000). Anger, aggression, and violence: An interdisciplinary approach. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company

Rolls,E.T. (1999). The Brain and Emotion. New York: Oxford University Press.

Saucier, D.M., McCreary, D.R., & Saxberg, J.K.J. (2002). Does gender role socialization mediate sex differences in mental rotations? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1101-1111.

Scherer, K. R. (2000). Psychological models of emotion. In J. C. Borod (Ed.), The neuropsychology of emotion (pp. 137-162). New York: Oxford University Press.

Scherer, K. R., Wranik, T., Sangsue, J., Tran, V., & Scherer U. (2004) Emotions in everyday life: probability of occurrence, risk factors, appraisal and reaction patterns. Social Science Information, 43, 499-570.


Schoenbaum, G., Chiba, A.A., & Gallagher, M. (1998). Orbitofrontal cortex and basolateral amygdala encode expected outcomes during learning. Natural Neuroscience, 1, 155-159.

Solomon, R. C. (1990). A passion for justice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Spielberger. C.D. (1999). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXJ), Palo Alto, CA: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.

SPSS (2007). SPSS Graduate Pack 15.0 For Windows. Chicago, Illinois: SPSS, Inc.

Taylor, M.C., & Hall, J.A. (1981). Psychological Androgyny: Theories, method and , conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 347-366.

Van Kleef, G.A., & Co~te', S. (2007). Expressing Anger in Conflict: When It Helps and When It Hurts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1557-1569.

Wacker, J., Heldmann, M., & Stemmler, G. (2003). Separating emotion and motivational direction in fear and anger: Effects on frontal asymmetry. Emotion, 3, 167-193.

Witherington, D.C., & Crichton, J.A. (2007). Frameworks for understanding emotions and their development: functionalist and dynamic systems approaches.

Emotion, 7, 628-37.

Wranik, T. (2004). Personality Under Stress: Who Gets Angry and Why? Individual Differences in Cognitive Appraisal and Emotion (online). These N° 336 Faculte de psychologie et des sciences de !'education de l'Universite de Geneve. http://www.unige.ch/cyberdocuments/theses2005/WranikT/these.pdf

Zald, D., & Rauch, S. (Eds). (2006). The orbitofrontal cortex. Oxford, MA: Oxford University Press.

Anger Experience and Expression 7 4

AppendixB


Demographic Information

Sample of Test Instruments: 111 STAXI-2 111 EPQ-R II BSRI


Demographic Information

Can you please provide responses to the following questions.

1. What is your year of birth ................... .

2. Are you - Female D Male D

3. Are you- Single D Married D Partnered Live In Relationship D

Partnered Live Independently Relationship D

4. Were you born in Australia Yes D No D

5. If you were not born in Australia What country were you born in .............. .

6. Are you an Australian Resident Yes D No D

7. What is your occupation ................... .


State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI-2)

The following represents a 10% sample of questions from the Spielberger ( 1999). StateTrait Anger Expression Inventory.

Part 1 Directions \ number of statements that people use to describe themselves are given below. Read each statement and then >lacken the appropriate circle on the Rating Sheet to indicate how you feel right now. There are no right or vrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. Mark the answer that best describes your JTesent feelings.

Fill in G) for Not at all Fill in ® for Somewhat Fill in ® for Moderately so Fill in ® for Very much so

How I Feel Right Now

1. I am furious

2. I feel irritated

Part 2 Directions Read each of the following statements that people have used to describe themselves, and then blacken the appropriate circle to indicate how you generally feel or react. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. Mark the answer that best describes how you generally feel or react.

Fill in G) for Almost never Fill in ® for Sometimes Fill in @ for Often Fill in ® for AliiWst always

How I Generally Feel

16. I am quick tempered

17. I have a fiery temper

Part 3 Directions Everyone feels angry or furious from time to time, but people differ in the ways that they react when they are angry. A number of statements are listed below which people use to describe their reactions when they feel angry or furious. Read each statement and then blacken the appropriate circle to indicate how often you generally react or behave in the manner described when you are feeling angry or furious. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement.

Fill in G) for Almost 11ever Fill in ® for Sometimes Fill in ® for Often Fill in ® for Almost always

How I Generally React or Behave When Angry or Furious ...

26. I control my temper

27. I express my anger

Reference

Spielberger. C.D. (1999). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventmy (STAXI), Palo Alto, CA: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.


EYSENCK Personality Questionnaire- Revised (EPQ-R)

The following represents a 10% sample of 106 questionstions from the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised (EPQ-R) (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1999).

INSTRUCTIONS: Please answer each question by putting a circle around the 'YES' or 'NO' following the question. There are no right or wrong answers, and no trick questions. Work quickly and do not think too long about the exact meaning of the questions.

• PLEASE REMEMBER TO ANSWER EACH QUESTION

1 Do you have many different hobbies?

2 Do you stop to think thlngs over before doing anythlng?

3 Does your mood often go up and down?

4 Have you ever taken the praise for somethlng you knew someone else had really done?

5 Do you take much notice of what people think?

6 Are you a talkative person?

7 Would being in debt worry you?

8 Do you ever feel 'just miserable' for no reason?

9 Do you give money to charities?

Were you ever greedy by helping yourself to more than your share of anythlng?

References

Eysenck, H.J. , & Eysenck, S.B.G., (1991) Manual ofthe Eysenck Personality Scales. Hodder & Stoughton. London, United Kingdom


Bern Sex Role Inventory

The following represents a 10% sample of questions from Bern Sex Role Inventory an 60 item questionnaire.

2 3 4 5 6 7

* Never or Usually Sometimes but Occasionally Often Usually Always or almost not infrequently true true true almost

never true true true always true

Defend my own beliefs Adaptable Flatterable

Affectionate Dominant Theatrical

References

Bern, S. L. (1981). Bern Sex Role Inventory. Professional Manual. Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.


Appendix C


(SPSS Output Data)

Data Screening

Bivariate Correlations

Multiple Regression Analysis

Comparison of Mean Scores

Male-Female

Birth Year

Age

Marital Status

Biological Sex

Gender Role


DEMOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Std. Minimu Maximu Deviatio

N Range m m Sum Mean n Variance Statisti Std.

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic c Statistic Error Statistic Statistic

110 1 0 1 47 .43 .047 .497 .247

110 57 1932 1989 21630 1966.37 1.275 13.372 178.805 1

110 57 18 75 4491 40.83 1.283 13.455 181.043

110 3 1 4 236 2.15 .113 1.187 1.410

110 1 0 1 47 .43 .047 .497 .247

110 3 1 4 296 2.69 .108 1.131 1.280 Extraversion Introversion 110 1 0 1 49 .45 .048 .499 .249 Valid N (listwise) 110

AGE BY BIOLOGICAL SEX DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Male-Female N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Female Age 63 18 68 41.63 12.694

Valid N (listwise) 63 Male Age 47 18 75 39.74 14.482

Valid N (listwise) 47

ASSESSING NORMALITY

ANGER EXPRESSION OUTWARD

Std. Statistic Error

Anger Mean Expression 15.27 .401 Out

95% Confidence Lower Bound 14.48 Interval for Mean

Upper Bound 16.07

5% Trimmed Mean 15.16

Median 15.00 Variance 17.705 Std. Deviation 4.208 Minimum 8 Maximum 28 Range 20

lnterquartile Range 6 Skewness .396 .230 Kurtosis -.122 .457

Tests of Normality

KolmoQorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic I df I SiQ. Statistic I df I SiQ. Anger Expression Out .on 1 110 1 .114 .973 1 110 1 .023

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction


Hlstogum Norma.IQ.QPioto!AngerE.tpresslonOut Oetrended Norm; I Q.Q Plot of Anger Ellpresslon

0 0

n

ASSESSING NORMALITY

ANGER EXPRESSION INWARD

Statistic Std. Error Anger Expression In Mean 16.25 .388

95% Confidence Lower Bound 1549 Interval for Mean Upper Bound

17.02

5% Trimmed Mean 16.12 Median 16.00 Variance 16.577 Std . Deviation 4.071 Minimum 9 Maximum 29 Range 20 lnterquartile Range 6 Skewness 455 .230 Kurtosis .130 457

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a) Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig Anger Expression In .080 110 .084 .975 110 .037

. . a Lrllrefors Srgnrfrcance Correctron

Histogra Horma.IQ.QPiotofAnger Expression In

nl l.'e.Jn""

'""" II ~ 1

Delrended Norm al Q-Q Plot of Anger Ex .·

. 0


ASSESSING NORMALITY

ANGER CONTROL OUT

Descriptives

Statistic Std . Error Anger Control Out Mean 23.09 .518

95% Confidence Lower Bound 22 .06 Interval for Mean Upper Bound

24.12

5% Trimmed Mean 23.21

Median 23.00

Variance 29.496

' Std . Deviation 5.431

Minimum 10

Maximum 32

Range 22

lnterquartile Range 8

Skewness -. 164 .230

Kurtosis -.713 .457

Tests of Normality

Kolmoqorov-Smirnov(a) Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig . Statistic df Sig. Anger Control Out .065 110 .200(*) .973 110

* Th1s IS a lower bound of the true s1gn1f1cance. a Lill iefors Significance Correction

Histogrilm

Norm1l Q-Q Plot of Anger Control Out

Dl>trMded Normal Q.Q Plot ol Anger Conllol Out

1 ·+---~-___.o. __ _ ! ~ . &

..

.024

Anger Control In

'

Anger Control In


ASSESSING NORMALITY ANGER CONTROL INWARD

Statistic Std. Error Mean 22.39 .526 95% Confidence Lower Bound 21.35 Interval for Mean Upper Bound

23.43

5% Trimmed Mean 22.46 Median 23.00 Variance 30.405 Std. Deviation 5.514 Minimum 10 Maximum 32 Range 22 lnterquartile Range 7 Skewness -085 .230 Kurtosis -.582 .457

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnov{CJl Sha___Q_iro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig . Statistic df Sig.

.057 110 .200(*) .976 110 .048 ..

* Th1s 1s a lower bound of the true s1gn 1f1cance. a Lilliefors Significance Correction

!/···· !'

' .

. ..


CORRELATION

BIVARIATE CORRELATION

Anger Anger Expressi Expressio on Out nln

Anger Pearson 1 .043 Expression Out Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .655 Anger Pearson .043 1 Expression In Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .655 Anger Control Pearson -.482(**) -.037 Out Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .703 Anger Control in Pearson -.404(**) .020

Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .839

Biological Sex Pearson -.008 -.072 Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .934 .452

Gender Role Pearson .074 .013 Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .444 .891

Extraversion Pearson -.285(**) .318(**) Introversion Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .001 . .

** Correlation IS s1gn1f1cant at the 0.01 level (2-talled) . * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). a Listwise N=11 0

Anger Control

Out

-.482(**)

.000

-.037

.703

1

.776(**)

.000

.115

.233

-.190(*)

.047

.141

.143

REGRESSION

Anger Control

In

-.404(**)

.000

.020

.839

.776(**)

.000

1

.036

.712

-.233(*)

.014

.123

.201

ANGER EXPRESSION OUTWARD

ENTER METHOD Only the regression that shows significance is reported.

Variables Entered I Removed (b)

Variables Variables Model Entered Removed Method 1 Extraversio

n Enter Introversion (a)

a All requested vanables entered. b Dependent Variable: Anger Expression Out

Model SummeRy

Correlations( a)

Biologic Gender Extraversion al Sex Role Introversion

-.008 .074 -.285(**)

.934 .444 .003

-.072 .013 .318(**)

.452 .891 .001

.115 -.190(*) .141

.233 .047 .143

.036 -.233(*) .123

.712 .014 .201

1 .172 .039

.073 .683

.172 1 .149

.073 .121

.039 .149 1

.683 .121

Change Statistics

Adjusted Std. Error o R Square Mode R R Square R Square he Estimate Change 1 .285a .081 .073 4.051 .081

a.Predictors: (Constant), Extraversion Introversion

b. Dependent Variable: Anger Expression Out

Change df1 df2 ig. F Chang1 9.580 1 108 .003


Sum of Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 157.231 1 157.231 9.580 .003a

Residual 1772.587 108 16.413 Total 1929.818 109

a. Predictors: (Constant), Extraversion Introversion

b. Dependent Variable: Anger Expression Out

Coefficients( a)

Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.

Model B Std. Error Beta B Std. Error 1 (Constant) 16.344 .519 31.509 .000

Extraversion Introversion -2.405 .777 -.285 -3.095 .003 a Dependent Vanable: Anger Expression Out

Residuals Statistics(a)

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N Predicted Value 13.94 16.34 15.27 1.201 110 Std. Predicted Value -1.111 .892 .000 1.000 110 Standard Error of

.519 .579 Predicted Value .545 .030 110

Adjusted Predicted Value 13.77 16.48 15.27 1.203 110 Residual -8.344 11.656 .000 4.033 110 Std. Residual -2.060 2.877 .000 .995 110 Stud. Residual -2.077 2.901 .000 1.004 110 Deleted Residual -8.483 11.850 .000 4.106 110 Stud. Deleted Residual -2.110 3.007 .001 1.012 110 Mahal. Distance .796 1.234 .991 .218 110 Cook's Distance .000 .070 .009 .011 110 Centered Leverage Value .007 .011 .009 .002 110

a Dependent Vanable: Anger Expression Out

REGRESSION

ANGER EXPRESSION INWARD

Variables Entered/Removed(b)

Variables Variables Model Entered Removed Method 1 Extraversio

n Enter Introversion (a)

a All requested vanables entered. b Dependent Variable: Anger Expression In


Model Summar}/

ChanQe Statistics

Adjusted Std. Error of R Square Model R R Square R Square the Estimate ChanQe F ChanQe df1 1 .3188 .101 .093 3.878 .101

a. Predictors: (Constant), Extraversion Introversion

b. Dependent Variable: Anger Expression In

ANOVA(b)

Sum of Model Squares df Mean Square 1 Regression 183.055 1

Residual 1623.818 108

' Total 1806.873 109 a Predictors: (Constant), Extraversion Introversion b Dependent Variable: Anger Expression In

183.055 15.035

Coefficients( a)

12.175

F 12.175

Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model 8 Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 15.098 .496

Extraversion 2.596 .744 .318

Introversion a Dependent Vanable: Anger Expression In

Residuals Statistics(a)

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Predicted Value 15.10 17.69 16.25 1.296 Std. Predicted Value -.892 1.111 .000 1.000 Standard Error of

.496 .554 .522 .029 Predicted Value

Adjusted Predicted Value 14.95 17.88 16.25 1.298 Residual -8.694 11.306 .000 3.860 Std. Residual -2.242 2.916 .000 .995 Stud. Residual -2.265 2.946 .000 1.005 Deleted Residual -8.875 11.542 .000 3.932 Stud. Deleted Residual -2.310 3.058 .002 1.014 Mahal. Distance .796 1.234 .991 .218 Cook's Distance .000 .090 .009 .014 Centered Leverage

.007 .011 .009 .002 Value

a Dependent Vanable: Anger Expression In

1

Sig.

.001 (a)

t

8 30.412

3.489

N

df2 SiQ. F Change 108 .001

Sig.

Std. Error .000

.001

110

110

110

110

110

110 110 110

110

110

110

110


REGRESSION

ANGER CONTROL OUTWARD

Variables Entered I Removed (b)

Variables Variables Model Entered Removed Method 1 Gender

Role( a) Enter

a All requested vanables entered. b Dependent Variable: Anger Control Out

Model Summaly

ChaiJ.!le Statistics

Adjusted Std. Error of R Square Model R R Square R Square he Estimate Change F Char1_g_e df1 df2 pig. F Change 1 .190a .036 .027 5.357 .036 4.023 1 108 .047

a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender Role

b. Dependent Variable: Anger Control Out

ANOVA(b)

Sum of Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 115.462 1 115.462 4.023 .047(a)

Residual 3099.629 108 28.700 Total 3215.091 109

a Predictors: (Constant), Gender Role b Dependent Variable: Anger Control Out

Coefficients( a) Unstandardized Standardized

Coefficients Coefficients t Sig. ---- ---

Model 8 Std. Error Beta 8 Std. Error 1 (Constant) 25.539 1.323 19.302 .000

Gender Role -.910 .454 -.190 -2.006 .047

a Dependent Vanable: Anger Control Out Residuals Statistics(a)

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N Predicted Value 21.90 24.63 23.09 1.029 110 Std. Predicted Value -1.157 1.495 .000 1.000 110 Standard Error of Predicted Value .530 .922 .709 .137 110

Adjusted Predicted Value 21.68 24.89 23.09 1.036 110 Residual -12.810 10.100 .000 5.333 110 Std. Residual -2.391 1.885 .000 .995 110 Stud. Residual -2.403 1.906 .000 1.004 110 Deleted Residual -12.936 10.321 .000 5.427 110 Stud. Deleted Residual -2.458 1.930 -.001 1.010 110 Mahal. Distance .075 2.234 .991 .753 110 Cook's Distance .000 .055 .009 .011 110 Centered Leverage Value .001 .020 .009 .007 110

a Dependent Vanable: Anger Control Out


REGRESSION

ANGER CONTROL INWARD

Variables Entered/Removed(b)

Variables Variables Model Entered Removed Method 1 Gender

Role( a) Enter

a All requested vanables entered. b Dependent Variable: Anger Control In

Model Summa~

Chanoe Statistics

Adjusted Std. Error of R Square Model R R Square R Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .233a .054 .046 5.387 .054

a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender Role

b. Dependent Variable: Anger Control In

ANOVA(b)

Sum of Model Squares df Mean Square

1 Regression 180.575

Residual 3133.616

Total 3314.191

a Predictors: (Constant), Gender Role b Dependent Variable: Anger Control In

1 180.575

108 29.015

109

Coefficients( a) U nstandardized Standardized

Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 25.453 1.330

Gender Role -1.138 .456 -.233

a Dependent Vanable: Anger Control In Residuals Statistics(a)

Minimum Maximum Mean Predicted Value 20.90 24.31 22.39 Std. Predicted Value -1.157 1.495 .000 Standard Error of Predicted Value .533 .927 .713

Adjusted Predicted Value 20.66 24.75 22.39 Residual -14.315 11.099 .000 Std. Residual -2.658 2.060 .000 Stud. Residual -2.698 2.083 .000 Deleted Residual -14.751 11.341 .001 Stud. Deleted Residual -2.781 2.116 .000 Mahal. Distance .075 2.234 .991 Cook's Distance .000 .111 .010 Centered Leverage Value .001 .020 .009

a Dependent Vanable: Anger Control in

6.224 1 108 .014

F Sig.

6.224 .014(a)

t Sig.

B Std. Error

19.132 .000

-2.495 .014

Std. Deviation N

1.287 110

1.000 110

.138 110

1.293 110

5.362 110

.995 110

1.005 110

5.464 110

1.013 110

.753 110

.015 110

.007 110


MEAN COMPARISONS

VARIABLE MEANS

Anger Expression Out Anger Expression In Anger Control Out Anger Control In * Biological Sex

Anger Expression Anger Anger Control Anger

Bioloqical Sex Out Expression In Out Control In FEMALE Mean 15.30 16.51 22.56 22.22

Std. Deviation 3.684 4.518 5.192 5.698 MALE Mean 15.23 15.91 23.81 22.62

Std. Deviation 4.864 3.400 5.713 5.310 Total Mean 15.27 16.25 23.09 22.39

' Std. Deviation 4.208 4.071 5.431 5.514

Anger Expression Out Anger Expression In Anger Control Out Anger Control In * Gender Role


Gender Role Out Expression In Out Control In Androgenous Mean 15.47 16.00 24.42 24.26

Std. Deviation 4.261 4.256 5.048 5.586 Female Mean 14.37 16.37 24.14 23.43

Std. Deviation 3.282 3.549 4.791 4.487 Male Mean 16.06 16.24 21.76 21.18

Std. Deviation 5.706 3.289 7.005 6.136 Undifferentiated Mean 15.64 16.28 22.08 21.08


Std. Deviation 4.208 4.071 5.431 5.514

Anger Expression Out Anger Expression In Anger Control Out Anger Control In * Extraversion Introversion


Extraversion Introversion Out Expression In Out Control In Extraversion Mean 16.34 15.10 22.41 21.79

Std. Deviation 4.423 3.586 5.448 5.475 Introversion Mean 13.94 17.69 23.94 23.14


Std. Deviation 4.208 4.071 5.431 5.514


MEAN COMPARISON USING T -TEST WITH BONFERRONI ADJUSTED ALPHA LEVEL- (.05/8) = .006

Independent Samples Test

evene's Test fo uality of Varianc t-test for Equality of Means

~5% Confidence Interval of the

Mean :ltd. Erro Difference

F Sig. t df jg. (2-taile ifferenc ifferenc Lower Upper Anger Expressi Equal varia

1.669 .199 3.095 108 .003 2.405 .777 .865 3.946 assumed

Equal varia 3.171 07.998 .002 2.405 .758 .902 3.909 not assume

Anger Expressi Equal varia .720 .398 -3.489 108 .001 -2.596 .744 -4.070 -1.121 ,. assumed

Equal varia -3.428 94.496 .001 -2.596 .757 -4.099 -1.092 not assume

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence Interval of the

td. Erro Difference

Extraversion lntn Mean d. Deviati< Mean Lower Upper t df ig. (2-taile< Extraversion Pair Anger Expressi

1.246 5.781 .740 -.235 2.727 1.683 60 1 - Anger Expres .098

Introversion Pair Anger Expressi -3.755 4.309 .616 -4.993 -2.518 -6.101 48 1 - Anger Expres .000


Levene's Test for ~ualitv of VariancE t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of the

Mean Std. Error Difference

F Sig. t df ig. (2-tailed )ifference )ifference Lower Upper Anger Contro Equal varian

3.731 .062 1.316 34 .197 2.656 2.019 -1.447 6.760 assumed

Equal varian 1.292 28.796 .207 2.656 2.056 -1.550 6.863 not assumec



evene's Test fo uality of Varianc t-test for Equality of Means

~5% Confidence Interval of the

Mean ~td. Erro Difference

F Sig. t df ig. (2-taile ifferenc ~ifferenc Lower Upper Anger Cont Equal varia

.413 .523 1.992 56 .051 3.186 1.600 -.018 6.390 assumed

Equal varia 2.016 36.907 .051 3.186 1.581 -.017 6.389 not assume


AppendixD


Guidelines for Contributions by Authors

http://www.apa.org(journals/emo/submission.html 20/03 .2008

Emotion Editor: Elizabeth A. Phelps, PhD ISSN: 1528-3542 Published bi-monthly, beginning in February

Instructions to Authors


Please consult APA's Instructions for All Authors for information regarding Manuscript Preparation Submitting Supplemental Materials Abstract and Keywords References Figures Permissions Publication Policies Ethical Principles

Submission Submit manuscripts electronically through the Manuscript Submission Portal in Rich Text Format (.rtf). All tables and figures should be included in the manuscript file.

I' Submiuion Portal Entrance

General correspondence may be directed to the Editor's Office. Mail Submission Submit manuscripts through the mail iflnternet access is not available. Please submit one hard copy of the manuscript along with a complete disk copy (text, tables, and fi gures) to the Editor, Elizabeth A. Phelps, PhD Department of Psychology New York University 6 Washington Place Room 863 New York, NY 10003

All copies should be clear, readable, and on paper of good quality. The complete disk copy should include a clear notation of the file names and the word processing and graphics software used. Figures may submitted on a separate disk or on a Zip disk. Masked Review Policy Masked reviews are optional, and authors who wish masked reviews must specifically request them when they submit their manuscripts. For masked reviews, the manuscript must include a separate title page with the authors' names and affiliations, and these ought not to appear anywhere else in the manuscript. Footnotes that identify the authors must be


typed on a separate page. Authors are to make every effort to see that the manuscript itself contains no clues to their identities. Manuscript Submission Guidelines In addition to addresses and phone numbers, authors should supply electronic mail addresses and fax numbers for use by the editorial office and later by the production office. The majority of correspondence between the editorial office and authors is handled by email, so a valid e-mail address is important to the timely flow of communication during the editorial process.

Authors should provide electronic mail addresses in their cover letters and should keep a copy of the manuscript to guard against loss. Manuscripts are not returned. Manuscripts for Emotion can vary in length; typically they will range from 15 to 40 doublespaced manuscript pages. Manuscripts should be of sufficient length to ensure theoretical anp methodological competence.

Most of the articles published in Emotion will be reports of original research, but other types of articles are acceptable.

Case studies from either a clinical setting or a laboratory will be considered if they raise or illustrate important questions that go beyond the single case and have heuristic value.

Articles that present or discuss theoretical perspectives on the basis of published data, may also be accepted.

Comprehensive reviews of the empirical literature in an area of study are acceptable if they contain a meta-analysis and/or present novel theoretical or methodological perspectives.

Comments on articles published in the journal will be considered.

Brief Reports Emotion also publishes brief reports. Manuscripts submitted as Brief Reports should not exceed 3,400 words, exclusive of references and figure captions. There should be no more than 2 figures or tables and no more than 30 references.

Theoretical Notes Emotion publishes articles that make important theoretical contributions to research areas that are of major importance for the study of emotion and affect. Preference is given to manuscripts that advance theory by integrating prior work and by suggesting concrete avenues for the empirical investigation of the theoretical predictions. Extensive, systematic evaluation of alternative theories is expected.

Manuscripts devoted to surveys of the literature are acceptable only ifthey can be considered as a major contribution to the field, documenting cumulative evidence and highlighting central theoretical and/or methodological issues of scientific debate. Emotion also publishes, as Theoretical Notes, commentary that contributes to progress in a given subfield of emotion or affect. Such notes include, but are not limited to, discussions of alternative theoretical approaches, and metatheoretical commentary on theory testing and related topics.


Manuscripts submitted as Theoretical Notes should not exceed 5,000 words (exclusive of references). There should be no more than 50 references. APA Journals Manuscript Submission Instructions For All Authors The following instructions pertain to all journals published by APA and the Educational Publishing Foundation (EPF). Please also visit the web page for the journal to which you plan to submit your article for submission addresses, journal-specific instructions and exceptions. Manuscript Preparation

Prepare manuscripts according to the Publication Manual ofthe American Psychological Association (5th edition). Manuscripts may be copyedited for bias-free language (see Chapter 2 of the Publication Manual).

Dopble-space all copy. Other formatting instructions, as well as instructions on preparing tables, figures, references, metrics, and abstracts appear in the Manual. If your manuscript was mask reviewed, please ensure that the final version for production includes a byline and full author note for typesetting.

Review AP A's Checklist for Manuscript Submission before submitting your article. Submitting Supplemental Materials

APA can now place supplementary materials online, available via the published article in the PsycARTICLES database. Please see~=~~=~~~~=:~~-'--'--~--="-="" Material for more details.

Abstract and Keywords All manuscripts must include an abstract containing a maximum of 180 words typed on a separate page. After the abstract, please supply up to five keywords or brief phrases.

References List references in alphabetical order. Each listed reference should be cited in text, and each text citation should be listed in the References section.

Examples ofbasic reference formats: Journal Article: Fullagar, C. (1986). A factor analytic study on the validity of a union commitment scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 129-136. Authored Book: Mitchell, T. R., & Larson, J. R., Jr. (1987). People in organizations: An introduction to organizational behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Chapter in an Edited Book Bjork, R. A. (1989). Retrieval inhibition as an adaptive mechanism in human memory. In H. L. Roediger III & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties of memory & consciousness (pp. 309-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Figures

Graphics files are welcome if supplied as Tiff, EPS, or PowerPoint files. The minimum line weight for line art is 0.5 point for optimal printing. When possible, please place symbol legends below the figure instead of to the side.


Original color figures can be printed in color at the editor's and publisher's discretion provided the author agrees to pay $255 for one figure $425 for two figures $575 for three figures $675 for four figures $55 for each additional figure

Permissions Authors of accepted papers must obtain and provide to the editor on final acceptance all necessary permissions to reproduce in print and electronic form any copyrighted work, including, for example, test materials (or portions thereof) and photographs of people. ~ Download Permissions Alert Form (PDF: 46KB)

Publication Policies APA policy prohibits an author from submitting the same manuscript for concurrent consideration by two or more publications.

See also AP A's policy regarding Posting Articles on the Internet. AP A requires authors to reveal any possible conflict of interest in the conduct and reporting of research (e.g., financial interests in a test or procedure, funding by pharmaceutical companies for drug research).

"Download Disclosure ofinterests Form (PDF: 58KB) Authors of accepted manuscripts are required to transfer the copyright to AP A. ~ Download Publication Rights (Copyright Transfer) Form (PDF: 48KB)

Ethical Principles It is a violation of APA Ethical Principles to publish "as original data, data that have been previously published" (Standard 8.13).

In addition, APA Ethical Principles specify that "after research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and unless legal rights concerning proprietary data preclude their release" (Standard 8.14).

APA expects authors to adhere to these standards. Specifically, AP A expects authors to have their data available throughout the editorial review process and for at least 5 years after the date of publication.

Authors are required to state in writing that they have complied with AP A ethical standards in the treatment of their sample, human or animal, or to describe the details of treatment. ~Download Certification of Compliance With APA Ethical Principles Form (PDF: 24KB)

The APA Ethics Office provides the full Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct electronically on their web site in HTML, PDF, and Word format. You may also request a copy by writing to the APA Ethics Office, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC


20002-4242 (or see "Ethical Principles," December 1992, American Psychologist, Vol. 47, pp. 1597-1611).

Other Information

the role of sex, gender role, and extraversion

Documents